Re: [Geopriv] I-D ACTION:draft-linsner-geopriv-adminspecific-00.txt

From: Henning Schulzrinne ^lt;hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Mon Jul 30 2007 - 12:16:10 EDT

Particular for XML, why not define a namespace, so that names in XML can
be descriptive, rather than be something like <as-23>something</as-23>.
I realize that this approach simplifies mapping from CAtypes to XML, but
I suspect there are better ways to deal with that. Namespaces were
designed for exactly such extensibility purposes and maintain the
labeling and validation properties and are more likely to cope well with
accidental "leakage" across administrative boundaries. We don't want to
introduce the equivalent of XML Address Translators (XATs), as NATs
teach us that something that's meant to be local never stays that way.

If administratively-scoped CAtypes are needed, it may be better to
follow examples of other protocols, by having an extension point and label.

Marc Linsner wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
>
> Title : Administrative Specific Elements for Civic
> Location Format
> Author(s) : M. Linsner, S. Dhesikan
> Filename : draft-linsner-geopriv-adminspecific-00.txt
> Pages : 9
> Date : 2007-7-24
>
> This document defines additional civic address parameters for use in
> Location Objects [1] and [4]. The format is based on the civic
> address definition of PIDF-LO. These addition parameters allow
> expression of administrative specific location data elements.
>

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:16:10 +0200

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 30 2007 - 12:16:18 EDT