Changing the LoST Location Profile Registry Policy
draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-02

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

Erik Kline Yes

Murray Kucherawy Yes

Roman Danyliw No Objection

Martin Duke No Objection

Lars Eggert No Objection

Benjamin Kaduk No Objection

Comment (2021-03-23 for -01)
Section 4

   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:

(nit) per RFC 8126, the DE is "appointed by the IESG, normally upon
recommendation by the relevant Area Director", which is not quite
aligned with the "designated by the responsible area director" text used
here.

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2021-03-24 for -01)
No email
send info
I love these sorts of documents - after a long session of reviewing really thik tomes, it's great to open a document and be able to review it in a single cop-of-coffee :-)

Francesca Palombini No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Zaheduzzaman Sarker No Objection

Comment (2021-03-19 for -01)
looks useful to me.

John Scudder No Objection

Comment (2021-03-24 for -01)
No email
send info
I agree with Ben's nit; otherwise, looks good to me.

Éric Vyncke No Objection

Comment (2021-03-25 for -01)
I agree with comments of Ben & Warren on this document.

Minor nits:
- missing IETF consensus boilerplate
- wrong IESG state ;-)
- slightly annoyed by the US-centric note of NENA (i.e., unsure whether it helps the document, mentioning other SDO could be enough). No need to change the text


-éric

Robert Wilton No Objection

Comment (2021-03-22 for -01)
Hi,

Thanks for this document.

One minor comment: It might be helpful to readers to mention IANA in the abstract.

E.g., changing "Translation (LoST) Location Profile registry" to "Translation (LoST) Location Profile IANA registry".

Regards,
Rob