RE: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt

From: Brian Rosen ^lt;br@brianrosen.net>
Date: Tue Jul 24 2007 - 12:13:01 EDT

There is a pretty minor, but none-the-less real problem this solves.
In theory, the postal authorities and the municipal authorities agree on the
way a street name is constructed. However, there are cases where they
don't. Sometimes the municipality insists the road is called North Main St,
but the postal authorities insist it's Main Street North.

This occurs rarely, but it occurs. In the U.S., there is nominally an
"addressing authority" which should define what both postal and municipal
authorities accept. In practice, it doesn't work out that way always.

In 99.999% of the cases, what Marc says is true: there are tags for postal
community name and municipal community name, as well as tags for the
direction prefix and direction post fix, and a single PIDF can have all of
them and thus the recipient can construct a postal or a jurisdictional from
them.

I'm not really sure we need to solve this problem.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:02 PM
> To: 'Winterbottom, James'; 'Geopriv'
> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt
>
> James,
>
> 1) I find no documented requirements, hence my question.
>
> 2) I believe that all the tags associated with the 2 location types are
> already defined and don't overlap within the LO.
>
> 3) Assuming #2 is correct, if the target is smart enough to ask, it's
> smart
> enough to pull the desired tags from the LO and ignore the irrelevant
> tags.
>
> -Marc-
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Winterbottom, James [mailto:James.Winterbottom@andrew.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:57 AM
> > To: Marc Linsner; Geopriv
> > Subject: RE: [Geopriv]
> > draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt
> >
> > Marc,
> >
> > Do you agree that there is a difference between these two
> > types in some areas?
> >
> > Assuming that you do, then it is perfectly reasonable for a
> > Target to request the type that it wants.
> >
> > Cheers
> > James
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2007 1:53 AM
> > > To: 'Geopriv'
> > > Subject: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt
> > >
> > > What are the requirements behind locationType
> > jurisdictionalCivic: and
> > > postalCivic:??
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > -Marc-
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Geopriv mailing list
> > > Geopriv@ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------------------------------
> > This message is for the designated recipient only and may
> > contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
> > If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
> > immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
> > this email is prohibited.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------------------------------
> > [mf2]
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:13:01 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 24 2007 - 12:13:14 EDT