Re: [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01

[Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Murray,

 

Then why need this document?

Isn’t it already the practice that “The IESG will be tasked with appointing a designated expert (DE) to review registration requests against the published specification”?

 

Linda

 

From: Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 11:46 AM
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: secdir@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy.all@xxxxxxxx; ecrit@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01

 

Hi Linda, thanks for your review.  Comments below.

 

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 9:34 AM Linda Dunbar via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

This document doesn't seem to be complete. The document claims that it changes
the policy of the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location Profile
registry from Standards Action to Specification Required, but it doesn't
specify what is the new procedure.  It says allowing other SDOs to change or
add values. But which SDOs are allowed? Are there any procedures to identify
which SDOs are legitimate? can any organizations, say XYZ, change, add or
delete the values?

 

Specification Required is defined in RFC 8162.  The IESG will be tasked with appointing a designated expert (DE) to review registration requests against the published specification.  The DE will have discretion to determine whether an application should be accepted.  The document contains no guidance about particular SDOs, so the DE is left to decide whether to factor the source into the approval or rejection of the request.

 

So any SDO can make a request to update the registry.  The DE makes the call about "legitimate".

 

-MSK

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call