New civic elements are going to be a problem for those who implement geopriv-policy.
It would seem logical that the new -prefix elements fall within the "building" tag for <provide-civic> [1]. On the other hand, geopriv-policy is quite prescriptive about the fields that are included.
Worse yet, "full" would seem to be equally prescriptive of what fields are included. A strict reading would not allow a server to provide extension fields, regardless of the value of <provide-civic>.
My conclusion is that <provide-civic> needs better support for extensions. I'm interested to hear what others in the WG think.
--Martin
[1] <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-21#section-6.5.1>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
