draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-00.txt   draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01.txt 
ecrit R. Gellens ecrit R. Gellens
Internet-Draft Core Technology Consulting Internet-Draft Core Technology Consulting
Updates: 5222 (if approved) November 2, 2020 Updates: 5222 (if approved) November 18, 2020
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: May 6, 2021 Expires: May 22, 2021
Changing the LoST Location Profile Registry Policy Changing the LoST Location Profile Registry Policy
draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-00 draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01
Abstract Abstract
This document changes the policy of the Location-to-Service This document changes the policy of the Location-to-Service
Translation (LoST) Location Profile registry established by RFC5222 Translation (LoST) Location Profile registry established by RFC5222
from Standards Action to Specification Required. This allows from Standards Action to Specification Required. This allows
standards development organizations (SDOs) other than the IETF to add standards development organizations (SDOs) other than the IETF to add
new values. new values.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 6, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 5 skipping to change at page 3, line 5
No new security considerations are identified by this change in No new security considerations are identified by this change in
registry policy. registry policy.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to change the policy of the Location-to-Service IANA is requested to change the policy of the Location-to-Service
Translation (LoST) Location Profile Registry (established by Translation (LoST) Location Profile Registry (established by
[RFC5222]) to Specification Required. The expert reviewer is [RFC5222]) to Specification Required. The expert reviewer is
designated by the responsible area director. The reviewer should designated by the responsible area director. The reviewer should
verify that any proposed new value: verify that:
o Is specified by the IETF, NENA, or a similar SDO in which location o the proposed new value is specified by the IETF, NENA, or a
profiles are in scope; similar SDO in which location profiles are in scope;
o Has a clear need (which includes there not being an existing o the proposed new value has a clear need (which includes there not
profile that meets the need); being an existing profile that meets the need);
o The profile specification is unambiguous and interoperable. o the profile specification is unambiguous and interoperable.
5. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Ted Hardie for his helpful review and suggestions, and Many thanks to Ted Hardie for his helpful review and suggestions, and
to Guy Caron for his suggestion to clarify that "clear need" includes to Guy Caron for his suggestion to clarify that "clear need" includes
there not being an existing profile. there not being an existing profile.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 10 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/