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

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 <
rg+ietf@coretechnologyconsulting.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>