



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
