Subject: [Ecrit] Changing the LoST Location Profile registry from Standards Action to Specification Required

From: "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 09:16:39 -0700

Hi ECRIT,

I have a short draft that changes the policy of the LoST Location 
Profile registry from Standards Action to Specification Required (so 
NENA can add values):

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-00.txt

(The registry is at 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/lost-location-profiles/lost-location-profiles.xhtml).

Comments are requested.

--Randall

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 11:02:06 -0700

Hi Randy,

Thanks for sharing the document.   A couple of suggestions:  a citation to
RFC 8126 would be useful, since "specification required" is defined there.
I'd also suggest that you change the IANA considerations in two ways.  At
the moment, you  name an expert reviewer, which is a bit out of the
ordinary; I'd suggest removing that.  Second, you currently have this text
in the introduction:

   This document changes the registry  policy to Specification Required,
   allowing other SDOs such as NENA to add values.

"Specification required" is actually a good bit more open than this, as it
allows the expert to permit informal specifications (like
internet-drafts).  If this change is really specific to NENA and similar
emergency services bodies, I'd suggest moving this to the IANA
considerations and making that an explicit instruction to the expert.  That
would permit standards action plus those SDOs but would support the expert
continuing to limit the registry beyond those uses.

best regards,

Ted Hardie

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 9:16 AM Randall Gellens <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>

---

From: "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 14:14:46 -0700

Hi Ted,

Thanks for your review, I appreciate it.  If I understand, you're 
suggesting that in the IANA Considerations section it not name the 
expert reviewer (I thought I needed to), and to replace "The reviewer 
should use a criteria of a clear need and unambiguous definition for any 
new value" with "The reviewer should verify that any proposed value is 
specified by NENA or another SDO for emergency services, and meets a 
criteria of a clear need and unambiguous definition"? And also replace 
RFC 5226 with RFC 8126.

--Randall

---

From: "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 16:09:43 -0700

Version -01 is available, with changes as suggested by Ted.  Still only 
3 pages, so should be very easy to read.

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01.txt

Most significant change is in the IANA Considerations:

    The expert reviewer is
    designated by the responsible area director.  The reviewer should
    verify that any proposed new value is specified by the IETF, NENA, 
or
    a similar SDO, and meets a criteria of a clear need and unambiguous,
    interoperable definition.

--Randall

On 25 Sep 2020, at 14:14, Randall Gellens wrote:

> should use a criteria of a clear need and unambiguous definition for 
> any new value" with "The reviewer should verify that any proposed 
> value is specified by NENA or another SDO for emergency services, and 
> meets a criteria of a clear need and unambiguous definition"? And also 
> replace RFC 5226 with RFC 8126.
>
> --Randall
>