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: Rohan Mahy ^lt;rohan.mahy@gmail.com>
Date: Thu Jul 26 2007 - 11:33:24 EDT

Hi Brian,

I've come up with a few examples now where jurisdictional, emergency,
postal, and/or common use addresses have different road names and/or
"house numbers". I think we really need a way to distinguish these
when they are different.

As we've discussed in the past (and agreed I think), I think that this
is a PIDF-LO civic location problem, not a problem with the LCP or
dereference protocols.

I have provided three examples from two places in the US with which I
am familiar.

thanks,
-rohan

Example 1: Address on a corner.
Common use postal address:
324 Darwin Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA

Jurisdictional address:
1500 Broadway, Santa Cruz County, Santa Cruz, CA USA

Example 2: Rural communities with no village name recognized by the
postal service.
Jurisdictional address:
18780 Butternut Ridge Road, Lorain County, Russia Township, Sheldon, OH USA

Canonical Postal Address
18780 Butternut Ridge Road, Oberlin, OH 44074

Example 3: Alias streets with different numbering
74395 State Highway 58, Oberlin, OH
245 Main Street, Oberlin, OH

On 7/24/07, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> wrote:
> 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
>

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:33:24 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 26 2007 - 11:33:30 EDT