Re: [Ecrit] Adding top-level service labels

<hat type="individual"/>

Well, RFC 5222 does frequently refer to "service URNs", e.g.:
"
   1.  If the requested service, identified by the service URN [9] in
       the <service> element of the request, exists for the location
       indicated, then the LoST server copies the service URN from the
       request into the <service> element.
"
(Reference [9] is RFC 5031.)

So while it wouldn't necessarily cause the schema validator to choke, I wouldn't be surprised if there were implementors that read the document to imply that only "urn:service:*" names would appear in the <service> field.  

But I like your idea for extensibility better, and would like the above to be proven wrong...

--Richard

On Feb 14, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:

> I have no problem with opening registration.
> 
> In the interests of democratization of the space, is there anything
> prohibiting someone from using an http: URI to identify a service?
> The only reason that you want some portion of the urn:service: space
> is for interoperability.  The only other stricture is global
> uniqueness.
> 
> --Martin
> 
> On 14 February 2012 14:57, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:
>> Dear WG,
>> 
>> There has been little response to this proposal from Andrea.  In discussions with the ADs, the chairs have concluded that if this document progresses, it will have to be through the working group.  So we would like to issue a consensus call for whether the WG should take this document on as a WG item.
>> 
>> Please send comments to the list no later than 21 Feb 2012.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Richard and Marc
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 19, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Andrea G. Forte wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> Recently, the LoST Extensions draft has been ratified as RFC 6451. This
>>> means that people can start using LoST for non-emergency services.
>>> Furthermore, Telecom Italia (the first Italian mobile carrier) has
>>> contacted us for knowing the status of the service classification draft as
>>> they were interested in working in that area.
>>> 
>>> We think that times have matured enough to resume our discussion on
>>> non-emergency location-based services. However, given that this is the
>>> ECRIT working group, I wanted to bring to the group's attention the draft
>>> on service URN update policy
>>> [http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-forte-ecrit-service-urn-policy-00].
>>> 
>>> As a reminder, this draft would update "Section 4.1 of [RFC5031] in that
>>> the policy for adding top-level service labels is "Expert Review".  The
>>> expert is designated by the RAI Area Director". Today standard action is
>>> required for this, which is a significant overkill to just add "food" or
>>> "lodging". I do not see any harm in introducing this change in policy but
>>> I would like to know the opinion of the WG.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> -- Andrea G. Forte
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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