Subject: [Ecrit] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:01:12 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Policy for defining new service-identifying labels
	Author(s)       : Andrea G. Forte
                          Henning Schulzrinne
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy-03.txt
	Pages           : 5
	Date            : 2013-11-26

Abstract:
   In order to provide location-based services, descriptive terms for
   services need to be defined.  This document updates the policy for
   defining new service-identifying labels.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy-03

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy-03

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "FORTE, ANDREA G" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:12:49 +0000

Hi all,

I just posted a new version of the draft with some minor corrections and a
few open issues I would like the WG to address.

Currently we have three open issues (and a corresponding "NOTE" paragraph
in the draft for each one of those).

1. Have we agreed to allow private namespaces such as urn:nena in this
document? If so, please take a look at Section 3 of the draft and let me
know if the writing is sufficient.
2. If we allow private namespaces, should Section 4 apply only to the
public namespace domain or do we still want to provide some general
guidelines for private namespaces as well?
3. When we last discussed this document, there were suggestions on
allowing external non-IETF documents/templates to be submitted to the
expert for review. Should we have some requirements about this document in
Section 5? Any specific suggestions on the direction to follow?

Regards,
-- Andrea

On 11/26/13 12:01 PM, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> This draft is a work item of the Emergency Context Resolution with
>Internet Technologies Working Group of the IETF.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ecrit mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit