Hi All,
There have been a number of discussions on this list, and a number of drafts that attempt to introduce new civic address types. The problem is that all of these drafts, as written, would require an update of the schema defined in RFC5139, and would likely require a new namespace. This issue with this is that it breaks backward compatibility for other specifications, such as LoST. It also has impact on equipment vendors that have implement the 5139 schema, and national organizations that have profiled their civic addresses to fit within the 5139 schema.
This draft describes a way that allows easy tension of the civic schema, without breaking backwards compatibility, and allows local authorities to define their own local address elements in such a way that they can have local significance without being open to misinterpretation by general applications.
Cheers
James
A new version of I-D, draft-winterbottom-geopriv-local-civic-00.txt has been successfully submitted by James Winterbottom and posted to the IETF repository.
Filename: draft-winterbottom-geopriv-local-civic
Revision: 00
Title: Specifying Local Civic Address Fields in PIDF-LO
Creation_date: 2010-09-06
WG ID: Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 7
Abstract:
This document describes how to specify local civic elements in the Geopriv civic schema maintaining backward compatibility with existing specifications and implementations. Support for providing local civic elements over DHCP is also described.
|
| James Winterbottom Global Product Manager Andrew GeoLENs IP Location Product Portfolio Email: james.winterbottom@andrew.com Phone: +61-2-42-212938 |
