RE: Does anyone need a separate set of tags for "jurisdictional" vs"postal locations"? was RE: [Geopriv]draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt

From: Winterbottom, James ^lt;James.Winterbottom@andrew.com>
Date: Tue Jul 24 2007 - 16:54:17 EDT

Thanks Brian. Just to re-iterate! Unless you speak up and say keep postal and jurisdicational, this will revert to just plain civic in the enxt version. Cheers James -----Original Message----- From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net] Sent: Tue 7/24/2007 3:49 PM To: Dawson, Martin; 'Marc Linsner' Cc: 'Geopriv' Subject: Does anyone need a separate set of tags for "jurisdictional" vs"postal locations"? was RE: [Geopriv]draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt I'd like to finish up this thread with a plea for the working group members to look into their own national situation and determine if this is a problem or not. If the VALUES for the tags in the PIDF (for example, the "A" tags) can be different for a postal address than for a jurisdictional address, would you please report that information to the work group? If you have no problem in your country, then no action is necessary. If you have a problem, please describe it. I think we will find that there is no problem. If we get no reports, I ask that the next version of the HELD document drop this feature. Note that we retain both the jurisdictional community name and the post office name. That differentiation is needed in many countries, but the PIDF you get from HELD would have both. Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: Dawson, Martin [mailto:Martin.Dawson@andrew.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:12 PM > To: Marc Linsner > Cc: Geopriv > Subject: RE: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt > > Yes, probably. So the question is whether there is a need for the > distinction within the HELD request (though as Richard points out, the > fundamental question goes further afield). > > If the recipient (beholder) may not get everything they need from a > given form, then there's a need to ensure that the correct form can be > sourced by the provider of the LO (HELD request scenario). But, also, > given two LO's to choose from (not the HELD request scenario) and a > provider knows they need to choose one or other form, how can they tell > which is which? The latter is where I can see it would need to be part > of the PIDF-LO information. > > Anyway - it would be good to hear from some different jurisdictions just > how real the issue is. Obviously it's not going to be good for emergency > services (or value-added services depending on which civic-bias the LIS > adopts) if there's no way to provide a distinguished request/response. > > Cheers, > Martin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Linsner [mailto:mlinsner@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2007 5:57 AM > To: Dawson, Martin > Cc: 'Geopriv' > Subject: RE: [Geopriv] draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt > > Martin, > > > > > So - as Marc L kicked off - is there actually a requirement > > for this distinction? > > > > More precise: Is there a reason to make the distinction within the HELD > location request? > > The mechanism chosen to support what is termed 'postal' and > 'jurisdictional' > location types is to utilize the same LO type and add the appropriate > fields. If in fact there are some 'overlapping' fields, the same tag > used > for different purposes depending on the location type, then utilizing > the > same type for both purposes was probably not a wise choice (should be > remedied). If there are no 'overlapping' fields, then the beholder can > simply utilize the respective fields that match the use case. > > -Marc- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------- > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
Received on Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:54:17 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 24 2007 - 16:55:24 EDT