Re: [Ecrit] Service URN IANA Policy

["Hannes Tschofenig" <[e-mail]>]

Hi James, 

>Chairs
>
>With respect to
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-ecrit-lost-geoco
>ding-00.txt
>and forte's draft, I assume they keep -ecrit- in their 
>filename, and are individually submitted to the RFC-Editor 
>when the author feels they are ready?

Andrea has worked on a few documents, namely:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-forte-ecrit-service-urn-policy
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-forte-ecrit-service-classification
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-forte-ecrit-lost-extensions

So, which one do you mean? 

Regarding your document draft-polk-ecrit-lost-geocoding-00.txt

>From what I could hear at the last IETF meeting (via my remote
participation) a couple of folks had suggestions regarding your document and
they roughly proposed the following approach:

* Define a protocol for geocoding (not based on LoST)
* Define a discovery mechanism (based on LoST) for discovering the server
that does the geocoding

Regarding the overall approach of working on non-emergency services I have
not spoken to Cullen/Robert about this particular document. I plan to post a
separate mail about our very recent chat with them. 

>
>I don't mean this to be nefarious sounding, as I plan on 
>working within the WG until this doc has consensus of at least 
>those that care about it (knowing that because this isn't 
>going to be a WG item, the whole WG doesn't necessarily need 
>to have reached consensus.
>
>Is this the general plan of action for these types of IDs?
>
>Of should each of these IDs have -ecrit- removed from the 
>filenames because there is no hope of them ever being WG items now?
>
>Looking for clarification and guidance

Thanks for raising this issue. 

Ciao
Hannes

>
>James
>
>At 08:36 AM 9/30/2009, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
>>Hi all,
>>
>>we discussed the need to change the IANA allocation policy for the 
>>definition of new top-level services within this working group a few 
>>times. With the 
>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-forte-ecrit-service-urn-policy-00
>>proposal Henning and Andrea have describe the modification. We would 
>>change the allocation policy of top-level services from "Standards 
>>Action" to "Expert Review".
>>
>>The policy for assigning labels to sub-services is left unchanged and 
>>may differ for each top-level service designation and must be defined 
>>by the document describing the top-level service. For the Service URN 
>>RFC (RFC 5031) two sub-services are defined, namely 'sos' and 
>'counseling'.
>>The policy for adding sub-services to the 'sos' and the 'counseling'
>>services, as defined in RFC 5031, is "Expert Review".
>>
>>In order to progress draft-forte-ecrit-service-urn-policy-00 we would 
>>like to know whether someone has problems with this allocation policy 
>>change.
>>
>>Ciao
>>Hannes & Marc
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ecrit mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ecrit mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>