<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>


<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629-xhtml.ent">

<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" updates="5222" docName="draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-02" number="9036" obsoletes="" submissionType="IETF" category="std" consensus="true" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" tocDepth="2" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3">

  <front>
    
    <title abbrev="LoST Profiles Registry Policy">Changing the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location Profiles Registry Policy</title>
    <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9036"/>
    <author fullname="Randall Gellens" initials="R." surname="Gellens">
      <organization>Core Technology Consulting</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <city/>
          <region> </region>
          <code> </code>
          <country>United States of America</country>
        </postal>
        <email>rg+ietf@coretechnologyconsulting.com</email>
        <uri>http://www.coretechnologyconsulting.com</uri>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year="2021" month="June" />
    <area>Applications and Real Time</area>
    <workgroup>ecrit</workgroup>

    <abstract>
      <t>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.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    
    <section anchor="intro" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol <xref target="RFC5222" format="default"/> uses a location profile when conveying location (e.g., in a mapping request and a service boundary result).  <xref target="RFC5222" format="default"/> established an IANA registry of location profiles <xref target="reg" format="default"/> 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., <xref target="NENA-i3" format="default"/>) 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.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="scope" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Document Scope</name>
      <t>This document changes the policy of the "Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location Profiles" IANA registry <xref target="reg" format="default"/> established by <xref target="RFC5222" format="default"/> from Standards Action to Specification Required (as defined in <xref target="RFC8126" format="default"/>).  This allows SDOs other than the IETF to add new values.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>No new security considerations are identified by this change in registry policy.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      
      <t>IANA has changed the policy of the "Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location Profiles" registry (established by 
        <xref target="RFC5222" format="default"/>) to Specification Required. IANA has also added this document as a reference for the registry. The Expert Reviewer is designated per <xref target="RFC8126" format="default"/>.  The reviewer should verify that:
</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>the proposed new value is specified by the IETF, NENA, or a similar SDO in which location profiles are in scope;</li>
        <li>the proposed new value has a clear need (which includes there not being an existing profile that meets the need); and</li>
        <li>the profile specification is unambiguous and interoperable.</li>
      </ul>
    </section>

  </middle>
  <back>
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
	<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5222.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml"/>

        <reference anchor="reg" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/lost-location-profiles">
          <front>
            <title>Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location Profiles</title>
            <author>
	      <organization>IANA</organization>
	    </author>
            <date/>
          </front>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references>
        <name>Informative References</name>

        <reference anchor="NENA-i3" target="https://www.nena.org/page/i3_Stage3">
          <front>
            <title>Detailed Functional and Interface Standards for the NENA i3 Solution</title>
            <author><organization>National Emergency Number Association (NENA)</organization></author>
            <date year="2016" month="September"/>
          </front>
           <refcontent>NENA i3 Solution - Stage 3, NENA-STA-010.2-2016</refcontent>
	  
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
    <section numbered="false" toc="default">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
    
      <t>Many thanks to <contact fullname="Ted Hardie"/> for his helpful review and suggestions and to <contact fullname="Guy Caron"/> for his suggestion to clarify that "clear need" includes there not being an existing profile.</t>
    </section>

  </back>
  
</rfc>
