Internet-Draft LoST-Validation November 2020
Gellens Expires 6 May 2021 [Page]
Workgroup:
ecrit
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-00
Updates:
5222 (if approved)
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Author:
R. Gellens
Core Technology Consulting

Changing the LoST Location Profile Registry Policy

Abstract

This document changes the policy of the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location Profile 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 https://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 6 May 2021.

Table of Contents

1. Document Scope

This document changes the policy of the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location Profile 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 by the responsible area director. The reviewer should verify that any proposed new value:

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, , <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, , <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", , <https://www.nena.org/page/i3_Stage3>.

Author's Address

Randall Gellens
Core Technology Consulting
United States of America