Re: [Ecrit] draft-george-ecrit-lamp-post-00]

[Richard Barnes <rbarnes at bbn.com>]

Robins,

Given that your use case may be of a more local than global nature, I 
wonder if it would be appropriate to instead set a local standard that 
maps to the global (RFC 5139) standard.  We've been working on a 
document that has recommendations for how to do that:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-civic-address-recommendations>

--Richard


Robins George wrote:
> I 'd prefer using the PIDF-LO IANA procedure for adding a new element 
> for lamp posts.
> I think that re-using the address code is probably not a particularly 
> good idea.
>
> -robins
>
> Karl Heinz Wolf wrote:
> > Wouldn't the ADDCODE (Additional Code) element be a good place for the
> > lamp number code?
> >
> > karl heinz
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Winterbottom, James
> > <James.Winterbottom at andrew.com> wrote:
> >  
> > > A couple of things.
> > >
> > > First this should be posted to geopriv and ecrit.
> > >
> > > Secondly, could these not be covered by the LOC and landmark fields?
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > James
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
> > > Of Robins George
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2009 2:24 PM
> > > To: ECRIT IETF
> > > Subject: [Ecrit] draft-george-ecrit-lamp-post-00]
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I have submitted a draft which describes an extension to civic location
> > > format and
> > > adds new element PN (pole number). PN carries utility and lamp post
> > > number
> > > information which can identify a civic location.
> > >
> > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-george-ecrit-lamp-post-00
> > >
> > > Comments are appreciated.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Robins.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit