Re: [Ecrit] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy-03.txt

"FORTE, ANDREA G" <forte@att.com> Tue, 26 November 2013 17:13 UTC

From: "FORTE, ANDREA G" <forte@att.com>
To: "internet-drafts@ietf.org" <internet-drafts@ietf.org>, "i-d-announce@ietf.org" <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ecrit] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy-03.txt
Thread-Index: AQHO6skl7ih1wsldpUW6qkHWetAfqZo3v/gA
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:12:49 +0000
Message-ID: <CEBA3E5E.1CB99%af199p@att.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131126170112.22365.11031.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <B33EFBCFE1C3154E80D51F3DCE08CE64@LOCAL>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ecrit@ietf.org" <ecrit@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy-03.txt
Precedence: list

Hi all,

I just posted a new version of the draft with some minor corrections and a
few open issues I would like the WG to address.

Currently we have three open issues (and a corresponding "NOTE" paragraph
in the draft for each one of those).

1. Have we agreed to allow private namespaces such as urn:nena in this
document? If so, please take a look at Section 3 of the draft and let me
know if the writing is sufficient.
2. If we allow private namespaces, should Section 4 apply only to the
public namespace domain or do we still want to provide some general
guidelines for private namespaces as well?
3. When we last discussed this document, there were suggestions on
allowing external non-IETF documents/templates to be submitted to the
expert for review. Should we have some requirements about this document in
Section 5? Any specific suggestions on the direction to follow?

Regards,
-- Andrea

On 11/26/13 12:01 PM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org"
<internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:

>
>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Emergency Context Resolution with
>Internet Technologies Working Group of the IETF.
>
>	Title           : Policy for defining new service-identifying labels
>	Author(s)       : Andrea G. Forte
>                          Henning Schulzrinne
>	Filename        : draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy-03.txt
>	Pages           : 5
>	Date            : 2013-11-26
>
>Abstract:
>   In order to provide location-based services, descriptive terms for
>   services need to be defined.  This document updates the policy for
>   defining new service-identifying labels.
>
>
>The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy
>
>There's also a htmlized version available at:
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy-03
>
>A diff from the previous version is available at:
>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy-03
>
>
>Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>submission
>until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
>Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ecrit mailing list
>Ecrit@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

[Ecrit] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-… internet-drafts
Re: [Ecrit] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ecrit-service-… FORTE, ANDREA G