Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy
draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy
Network Working Group A.G. Forte
Internet-Draft AT&T
Intended status: Best Current Practice H. Schulzrinne
Expires: October 31, 2014 Columbia University
May 2014
Policy for defining new service-identifying labels
draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-policy-04.txt
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.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 31, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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 (http://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
2. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Namespace Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Guidelines for the creation of new top-level services . . . . 2
Forte & Schulzrinne Expires October 31, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Service URN Policy May 2014
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Introduction
Nowadays location-based services are widespread. Devices can detect
a user location and retrieve all available services in the
sourroundings of that location. A particular service can be
described by one or multiple terms such as "restaurant", "parking"
and "ATM machine". All such terms, however, need to be formally
defined so that a registry can be built and used to assure
consistency and compatibility between devices and between service
providers. Since descriptive terms for services are almost
unbounded, such registry would contain the most common terms. In
this document we update the policy for defining new terms, that is
new service-identifying labels.
2. Requirements notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Namespace Guidelines
[NOTE: Have we agreed on this approach that is, do we allow private
namespaces?]
Whereas one entity applies for the registraton of several new top-
level services which are of no interest to the general public, the
expert reviewer SHOULD consider the creation of an ad-hoc private
namespace (e.g., urn:nena [RFC6061]) under which such entity would be
free to define its own set of services and service labels.
On the other hand, if the new top-level services are of interest to
the general public or there is just one single top-level service to
be registered, the expert reviewer SHOULD decide for registration in
the public namespace domain (i.e., urn:service).
Namespaces MAY, at their discretion, use discovery mechanisms other
than the one described in [RFC5222].
4. Guidelines for the creation of new top-level services
[NOTE: Should this section apply only to the public namespace domain?
Do we want to give some general guidelines for private namespaces as
well?]
The number of services that can be defined is very large. New
services, however, SHOULD at least satisfy the following guidelines.
- The service MUST NOT overlap with any other service previously
registered;
Forte & Schulzrinne Expires October 31, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Service URN Policy May 2014
- The service has to be of general interest;
- It should not be specific to a particular country or region;
- The language in which the new service is defined MUST be English
(this is a protocol token, not meant to be shown to humans);
- The newly defined services SHOULD correspond to a standard
statistical classification of enterprises or services, such as the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and the
International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic
Activities (ISIC).
5. IANA Considerations
This document updates 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.
[NOTE: Add requirement for external non-IETF document or template
here?]
6. Security Considerations
This document does not raise security issues.
7. References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5031] Schulzrinne, H., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for
Emergency and Other Well-Known Services", RFC 5031,
January 2008.
[RFC5222] Hardie, T., Newton, A., Schulzrinne, H. and H. Tschofenig,
"LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Protocol", RFC
5222, August 2008.
[RFC6061] Rosen, B., "Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the
National Emergency Number Association (NENA)", RFC 6061,
January 2011.
Authors' Addresses
Andrea G. Forte
AT&T
Security Research Center
33 Thomas Street
New York, NY 10007
USA
Email: forte@att.com
Forte & Schulzrinne Expires October 31, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Service URN Policy May 2014
Henning Schulzrinne
Columbia University
Department of Computer Science
1214 Amsterdam Avenue, MC 0401
New York, NY 10027
USA
Email: hgs@cs.columbia.edu
Forte & Schulzrinne Expires October 31, 2014 [Page 4]