[Ecrit] Registering the 'LoST-Validation' NAPTR Service Tag
"Randall Gellens" <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Fri, 21 February 2020 11:57 UTC
Return-Path: <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F4B120813 for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 03:57:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GRvf-a3A_e6D for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 03:57:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304A1120800 for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 03:57:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.8.1.10] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 03:57:13 -0800
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
To: ecrit@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 03:57:08 -0800
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <B55A3230-29F5-4335-8259-431DBE4A6205@randy.pensive.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; markup="markdown"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/FSsxw6S-bgAxvQFOkA1Wl51KiNM>
Subject: [Ecrit] Registering the 'LoST-Validation' NAPTR Service Tag
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ecrit/>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:57:17 -0000
Working in NENA, we've identified a need to register a new S-NAPTR service tag 'LoST-Validation'. Background: as some may recall, the key motivator for LoST was emergency services, primarily the ability to lookup a service URN for a location (i.e., map "URN:SERVICE:SOS" to a SIP URI for a PSAP for a specific location), and secondarily the ability to validate a civic location (i.e., validate that a civic address is unique, dispatchable, and meets the requirements for the area). LoST provides the ability to do both. NENA i3 (which defines NG9-1-1) makes extensive use of LoST. One thing NENA i3 does that was not originally contemplated when LoST was developed is to allow separation of the core mapping function of LoST from the validation function. NENA i3 allows (but does not require) these two services to be provided separately (with the motivation that mapping is a time-crucial service done during emergency call routing, while validation is performed as data is provisioned into entities and is not time-crucial, so a provider might potentially provision and operate these two services differently). LoST uses U-NAPTR Application Unique Strings rather than URIs to refer to other LoST servers. There is currently one U-NAPTR service tag for LoST ("LoST"). In order to be able to separate service mapping from location validation, a second service tag is needed. Otherwise an entity can't tell from an Application Unique String which server should be used for which service, and can't resolve an Application Unique String into a URI for a LoST server that should be used for location validation. We therefore propose to define "LoST-Validation" as a service tag. This will allow an entity to locate a LoST server identified as performing civic location validation, leaving "LoST" as the service tag for core service mapping. (Of course, a LoST server located using the 'LoST' service tag might offer both mapping and validation, but the ability to use 'LoST-Validation' in NAPTR records makes explicit which LoST servers are intended for validation.) The Service Tags registry rules that require an RFC to add a tag, so I have submitted a small RFC to do this: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gellens-lost-validation-04.txt Comments, feedback, etc. are appreciated. --Randall
- [Ecrit] Registering the 'LoST-Validation' NAPTR S… Randall Gellens