GENWiki



Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Gellens Request for Comments: 9036 Core Technology Consulting Updates: 5222 June 2021 Category: Standards Track ISSN: 2070-1721

Changing the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location Profiles

                          Registry Policy

Abstract

 This document changes the policy of the "Location-to-Service
 Translation (LoST) Location Profiles" IANA registry established by
 RFC 5222 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 is an Internet Standards Track document.

 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
 Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9036.

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
 (https://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
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction
 2.  Document Scope
 3.  Security Considerations
 4.  IANA Considerations
 5.  References
   5.1.  Normative References
   5.2.  Informative References
 Acknowledgements
 Author's Address

1. Introduction

 The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol [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
 a standards development organization (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.

2. Document Scope

 This document changes the policy of the "Location-to-Service
 Translation (LoST) Location Profiles" IANA registry [reg] established
 by [RFC5222] from Standards Action to Specification Required (as
 defined in [RFC8126]).  This allows SDOs other than the IETF to add
 new values.

3. Security Considerations

 No new security considerations are identified by this change in
 registry policy.

4. IANA Considerations

 IANA has changed the policy of the "Location-to-Service Translation
 (LoST) Location Profiles" registry (established by [RFC5222]) to
 Specification Required.  IANA has also added this document as a
 reference for the registry.  The Expert Reviewer is designated per
 [RFC8126].  The reviewer should verify that:

• the proposed new value is specified by the IETF, NENA, or a

similar SDO in which location profiles are in scope;

• the proposed new value has a clear need (which includes there not

being an existing profile that meets the need); and

• the profile specification is unambiguous and interoperable.

5. References

5.1. Normative References

 [reg]      IANA, "Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location
            Profiles",
            <https://www.iana.org/assignments/lost-location-profiles>.

 [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>.

5.2. Informative References

 [NENA-i3]  National Emergency Number Association (NENA), "Detailed
            Functional and Interface Standards for the NENA i3
            Solution", NENA i3 Solution - Stage 3, NENA-STA-
            010.2-2016, September 2016,
            <https://www.nena.org/page/i3_Stage3>.

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.

Author's Address

 Randall Gellens
 Core Technology Consulting
 United States of America

 Email: rg+ietf@coretechnologyconsulting.com
 URI:   http://www.coretechnologyconsulting.com