ecrit R. Gellens Internet-Draft Core Technology Consulting Updates: 5222 (if approved) November 2, 2020 Intended status: Standards Track Expires: May 6, 2021 Changing the LoST Location Profile Registry Policy draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-00 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 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 May 6, 2021. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2020 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 May 6, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LoST-Validation November 2020 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 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 Gellens Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LoST-Validation November 2020 designated by the responsible area director. The reviewer should verify that any proposed new value: o Is specified by the IETF, NENA, or a similar SDO in which location profiles are in scope; o 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 Gellens Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LoST-Validation November 2020 Randall Gellens Core Technology Consulting US Email: rg+ietf@coretechnologyconsulting.com URI: http://www.coretechnologyconsulting.com Gellens Expires May 6, 2021 [Page 4]
