draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy-03.txt   draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy-04.txt 
Network Working Group A. Forte Network Working Group A.G. Forte
Internet-Draft AT&T Internet-Draft AT&T
Intended status: BCP H. Schulzrinne Intended status: Best Current Practice H. Schulzrinne
Expires: May 30, 2014 Columbia University Expires: October 31, 2014 Columbia University
November 26, 2013 May 2014
Policy for defining new service-identifying labels Policy for defining new service-identifying labels
draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy-03.txt draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy-04.txt
Abstract Abstract
In order to provide location-based services, descriptive terms for In order to provide location-based services, descriptive terms for
services need to be defined. This document updates the policy for services need to be defined. This document updates the policy for
defining new service-identifying labels. defining new service-identifying labels.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 33 skipping to change at page 1, line 33
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 30, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 31, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Namespace Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Namespace Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Guidelines for the creation of new top-level services . . . . . 3 4. Guidelines for the creation of new top-level services . . . . 2
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Nowadays location-based services are widespread. Devices can detect Nowadays location-based services are widespread. Devices can detect
a user location and retrieve all available services in the a user location and retrieve all available services in the
sourroundings of that location. A particular service can be sourroundings of that location. A particular service can be
described by one or multiple terms such as "restaurant", "parking" described by one or multiple terms such as "restaurant", "parking"
and "ATM machine". All such terms, however, need to be formally and "ATM machine". All such terms, however, need to be formally
defined so that a registry can be built and used to assure defined so that a registry can be built and used to assure
consistency and compatibility between devices and between service consistency and compatibility between devices and between service
skipping to change at page 4, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 53
the public namespace domain (i.e., urn:service). the public namespace domain (i.e., urn:service).
Namespaces MAY, at their discretion, use discovery mechanisms other Namespaces MAY, at their discretion, use discovery mechanisms other
than the one described in [RFC5222]. than the one described in [RFC5222].
4. Guidelines for the creation of new top-level services 4. Guidelines for the creation of new top-level services
[NOTE: Should this section apply only to the public namespace domain? [NOTE: Should this section apply only to the public namespace domain?
Do we want to give some general guidelines for private namespaces as Do we want to give some general guidelines for private namespaces as
well?] well?]
The number of services that can be defined is very large. New The number of services that can be defined is very large. New
services, however, SHOULD at least satisfy the following guidelines. services, however, SHOULD at least satisfy the following guidelines.
- The service MUST NOT overlap with any other service previously - The service MUST NOT overlap with any other service previously
registered; registered;
- The service has to be of general interest; - The service has to be of general interest;
- It should not be specific to a particular country or region; - It should not be specific to a particular country or region;
- The language in which the new service is defined MUST be English - The language in which the new service is defined MUST be English
(this is a protocol token, not meant to be shown to humans); (this is a protocol token, not meant to be shown to humans);
- The newly defined services SHOULD correspond to a standard - The newly defined services SHOULD correspond to a standard
statistical classification of enterprises or services, such as the statistical classification of enterprises or services, such as the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and the
International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic
Activities (ISIC).
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document updates Section 4.1 of [RFC5031] in that the policy for This document updates Section 4.1 of [RFC5031] in that the policy for
adding top-level service labels is "Expert Review". The expert is adding top-level service labels is "Expert Review". The expert is
designated by the RAI Area Director. designated by the RAI Area Director.
[NOTE: Add requirement for external non-IETF document or template [NOTE: Add requirement for external non-IETF document or template
here?] here?]
skipping to change at page 4, line 43 skipping to change at page 3, line 39
7. References 7. References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5031] Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for [RFC5031] Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for
Emergency and Other Well-Known Services", RFC 5031, Emergency and Other Well-Known Services", RFC 5031,
January 2008. January 2008.
[RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H. [RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H. and H. Tschofenig,
Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Protocol", RFC
Protocol", RFC 5222, August 2008. 5222, August 2008.
[RFC6061] Rosen, B., "Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the [RFC6061] Rosen, B., "Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the
National Emergency Number Association (NENA)", RFC 6061, National Emergency Number Association (NENA)", RFC 6061,
January 2011. January 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Andrea G. Forte Andrea G. Forte
AT&T AT&T
Security Research Center Security Research Center
33 Thomas Street 33 Thomas Street
New York, NY 10007 New York, NY 10007
USA USA
Email: forte@att.com Email: forte@att.com
Henning Schulzrinne Henning Schulzrinne
Columbia University Columbia University
Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science
1214 Amsterdam Avenue, MC 0401 1214 Amsterdam Avenue, MC 0401
New York, NY 10027 New York, NY 10027
USA USA
Email: hgs@cs.columbia.edu Email: hgs@cs.columbia.edu
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
31 lines changed or deleted 31 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/