you'll see that this namespace is declared in reference to the
civicAddress in both the query and response:
<civicAddress
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr">
<country>DE</country>
<A1>Bavaria</A1>
<A3>Munich</A3>
<PC>81675</PC>
</civicAddress>
The location ID is present in both as well, so I don't think there
should be much confusion about how the location validation response
elements are to be interepreted. They are specific to a location,
which already has a namespace attached.
It may be that further text is required to make that even more clear,
but I don't think adding a namespace within the locationValidation
response itself is needed.
regards,
Ted
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:
> (note the crosspost - please reply only to ecrit@ietf.org)
> Please see <http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2511>
> and thread on the Ecrit list titled
>
> Erratum report on erratum 2511 to RFC 5222 (LoST: A Location-to-Service
> Translation Protocol)
>
> which started Nov 23, 2010.
> Given the subsequent discussion of draft-ietf-geopriv-local-civic, I plan to
> mark this errata as
> Verified. If you don't think this is the correct thing to do, please let me
> know ASAP. If there are no
> replies, I will verify that errata next Thursday (11Aug)
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
