1 files changed, 146 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc9036.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc9036.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..66d175d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc9036.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,146 @@
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        R. Gellens
+Request for Comments: 9036                    Core Technology Consulting
+Updates: 5222                                                  June 2021
+Category: Standards Track                                               
+ISSN: 2070-1721
+
+
+ Changing the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location Profiles
+                            Registry Policy
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document changes the policy of the "Location-to-Service
+   Translation (LoST) Location Profiles" IANA registry established by
+   RFC 5222 from Standards Action to Specification Required.  This
+   allows standards development organizations (SDOs) other than the IETF
+   to add new values.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This is an Internet Standards Track document.
+
+   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
+   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
+   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
+   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
+   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9036.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+   document authors.  All rights reserved.
+
+   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
+   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
+   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
+   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
+   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
+   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
+   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
+   described in the Simplified BSD License.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction
+   2.  Document Scope
+   3.  Security Considerations
+   4.  IANA Considerations
+   5.  References
+     5.1.  Normative References
+     5.2.  Informative References
+   Acknowledgements
+   Author's Address
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol [RFC5222] uses a
+   location profile when conveying location (e.g., in a mapping request
+   and a service boundary result).  [RFC5222] established an IANA
+   registry of location profiles [reg] with a registry policy of
+   Standards Action.  This requires a Standards Track RFC for any new
+   registry values.  The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) is
+   a standards development organization (SDO) that makes significant use
+   of LoST in its emergency call specifications (e.g., [NENA-i3]) and
+   has identified a need for additional location profiles.  This
+   document changes the registry policy to Specification Required,
+   allowing other SDOs such as NENA to add values.
+
+2.  Document Scope
+
+   This document changes the policy of the "Location-to-Service
+   Translation (LoST) Location Profiles" IANA registry [reg] established
+   by [RFC5222] from Standards Action to Specification Required (as
+   defined in [RFC8126]).  This allows SDOs other than the IETF to add
+   new values.
+
+3.  Security Considerations
+
+   No new security considerations are identified by this change in
+   registry policy.
+
+4.  IANA Considerations
+
+   IANA has changed the policy of the "Location-to-Service Translation
+   (LoST) Location Profiles" registry (established by [RFC5222]) to
+   Specification Required.  IANA has also added this document as a
+   reference for the registry.  The Expert Reviewer is designated per
+   [RFC8126].  The reviewer should verify that:
+
+   *  the proposed new value is specified by the IETF, NENA, or a
+      similar SDO in which location profiles are in scope;
+
+   *  the proposed new value has a clear need (which includes there not
+      being an existing profile that meets the need); and
+
+   *  the profile specification is unambiguous and interoperable.
+
+5.  References
+
+5.1.  Normative References
+
+   [reg]      IANA, "Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location
+              Profiles",
+              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/lost-location-profiles>.
+
+   [RFC5222]  Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H., and H.
+              Tschofenig, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation
+              Protocol", RFC 5222, DOI 10.17487/RFC5222, August 2008,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5222>.
+
+   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
+              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
+              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
+
+5.2.  Informative References
+
+   [NENA-i3]  National Emergency Number Association (NENA), "Detailed
+              Functional and Interface Standards for the NENA i3
+              Solution", NENA i3 Solution - Stage 3, NENA-STA-
+              010.2-2016, September 2016,
+              <https://www.nena.org/page/i3_Stage3>.
+
+Acknowledgements
+
+   Many thanks to Ted Hardie for his helpful review and suggestions and
+   to Guy Caron for his suggestion to clarify that "clear need" includes
+   there not being an existing profile.
+
+Author's Address
+
+   Randall Gellens
+   Core Technology Consulting
+   United States of America
+
+   Email: rg+ietf@coretechnologyconsulting.com
+   URI:   http://www.coretechnologyconsulting.com