There is a little pressure from the LOC group in the OMA to get this issue closed. They have extensions that they want to define. They already use the XML format in LOCSIP; they also intend to use RFC 4776 - or something very close to it - in LPPe.
--Martin
On 2010-12-17 at 15:43:55, Thomson, Martin wrote:
> I've just posted a revision to the -local-civic draft that captures
> some of the progress in the civic address extension discussions we've
> been having.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-winterbottom-geopriv-local-civic-04
>
> The changes are based on the discussions that
> Brian, Richard, JamesW and I have had both on and off list.
>
> This isn't the end of the discussion. We haven't completely finished
> ironing out all the details, but we've made some fairly significant
> progress.
>
> The high points:
>
> - problem: there are two formats, and currently two places that
> extensions to those formats can originate
>
> - solution: the draft makes the XML format the only place an extension
> can originate
>
> - consequence: one final CAtype is defined for carrying an XML-
> originating extension
>
> - consequence: the CAtype registry is revised to reflect this
>
>
> I think that this is simple, pragmatic and backward compatible.
>
> --Martin
>
> p.s. On leave until January. Apologies if responses are a little slow.
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
