The "CAtypes" registry is altered to operate on a registration policy
of "Expert Review", and optionally "Specification Required"
[RFC5226].
The registration rules for "Specification Required" are followed only
if a registration includes a reference to a specification.
Registrations can be made without a specification reference.
I think this came about because of my yammering about two different kinds of extensions:
1) Truly local extensions, where an app has to be created specifically around the use case and the extension. These are more special purpose applications
2) Generally applicable extensions that are used relatively widely, and for which most implementations should be able to use them
We expect, for example, that any implementation of civic address would be able to handle ALL of the CAtypes in the current registry, and implementors of a location source can reasonably expect that a PIDF containing any or all of these elements would work.
I posit that we haven't had enough countries writing their civic address encodings as recommended in 5774, and we will find some additional elements like Street Type Prefix, and Lamp Post, which are more commonly used.
What I would like to see is two ways to add a new element to the registry: one which is basically FCFS, expert review to avoid duplicates, and the other is specification required, expert review for general applicability. We would the say that all implementations SHOULD be able to correctly handle any of the latter elements, just like they handle the elements now in 5139.
The definition of the registry in the current draft of local-civic is okay, the working of Management Policy is what I want to change.
I will propose exact wording for this section if this differentiation makes sense.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
