Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy
draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy
ecrit R. Gellens
Internet-Draft Core Technology Consulting
Updates: 5222 (if approved) March 25, 2021
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: September 26, 2021
Changing the LoST Location Profile Registry Policy
draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-02
Abstract
This document changes the policy of the Location-to-Service
Translation (LoST) Location Profile IANA registry established by
RFC5222 from Standards Action to Specification Required. This allows
standards development organizations (SDOs) other than the IETF to add
new values.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 26, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Gellens Expires September 26, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LoST-Validation March 2021
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Document Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Document Scope
This document changes the policy of the Location-to-Service
Translation (LoST) Location Profile IANA registry [reg] established
by [RFC5222] from Standards Action to Specification Required (as
defined in [RFC8126]). This allows standards development
organizations (SDOs) other than the IETF to add new values.
2. Introduction
The Location-to-Service Translation Protocol, LoST [RFC5222] uses a
location profile when conveying location (e.g., in a mapping request
and a service boundary result). [RFC5222] established an IANA
registry of location profiles [reg], with a registry policy of
Standards Action. This requires a standards-track RFC for any new
registry values. The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) is
an SDO that makes significant use of LoST in its emergency call
specifications (e.g., [NENA-i3]) and has identified a need for
additional location profiles. This document changes the registry
policy to Specification Required, allowing other SDOs such as NENA to
add values.
3. Security Considerations
No new security considerations are identified by this change in
registry policy.
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to change the policy of the Location-to-Service
Translation (LoST) Location Profile Registry (established by
[RFC5222]) to Specification Required. The expert reviewer is
designated per [RFC8126]. The reviewer should verify that:
Gellens Expires September 26, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LoST-Validation March 2021
o the proposed new value is specified by the IETF, NENA, or a
similar SDO in which location profiles are in scope;
o the proposed new value has a clear need (which includes there not
being an existing profile that meets the need);
o the profile specification is unambiguous and interoperable.
5. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Ted Hardie for his helpful review and suggestions, and
to Guy Caron for his suggestion to clarify that "clear need" includes
there not being an existing profile.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[reg] "Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location Profile
Registry", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/lost-
location-profiles/lost-location-profiles.xhtml>.
[RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H.
Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation
Protocol", RFC 5222, DOI 10.17487/RFC5222, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5222>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
6.2. Informative references
[NENA-i3] National Emergency Number Association (NENA)
Interconnection and Security Committee, i3 Architecture
Working Group, , "Detailed Functional and Interface
Standards for the NENA i3 Solution", 2016,
<https://www.nena.org/page/i3_Stage3>.
Author's Address
Randall Gellens
Core Technology Consulting
US
Email: rg+ietf@coretechnologyconsulting.com
URI: http://www.coretechnologyconsulting.com
Gellens Expires September 26, 2021 [Page 3]
