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

Version -01 is available, with changes as suggested by Ted.  Still only 
3 pages, so should be very easy to read.

https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01.txt

Most significant change is in the IANA Considerations:

    The expert reviewer is
    designated by the responsible area director.  The reviewer should
    verify that any proposed new value is specified by the IETF, NENA, 
or
    a similar SDO, and meets a criteria of a clear need and unambiguous,
    interoperable definition.

--Randall

On 25 Sep 2020, at 14:14, Randall Gellens wrote:

> Hi Ted,
>
> Thanks for your review, I appreciate it.  If I understand, you're 
> suggesting that in the IANA Considerations section it not name the 
> expert reviewer (I thought I needed to), and to replace "The reviewer 
> should use a criteria of a clear need and unambiguous definition for 
> any new value" with "The reviewer should verify that any proposed 
> value is specified by NENA or another SDO for emergency services, and 
> meets a criteria of a clear need and unambiguous definition"? And also 
> replace RFC 5226 with RFC 8126.
>
> --Randall
>
> On 25 Sep 2020, at 11:02, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>

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