Re: [Geopriv] "House Number" misnamed?

["Rosen, Brian" <brian.rosen at neustar.biz>]

Yes, Apartment number currently goes in ³UNIT², but my ³INT² proposal would
change that.  It does NOT go in ³HNO².

Brian


On 10/26/09 1:52 PM, "James Polk" <jmpolk at cisco.com> wrote:

> At 11:00 AM 10/26/2009, Rosen, Brian wrote:
>> In the original PIDF-LO definition in RFC4119, we have a field called "House
>> Number" (and a "House Number Suffix").  Is this field misnamed?
>> 
>> Suppose you had a "milepost" on a road, or on a railroad, or even a hiking
>> trail.  Would you expect the marker number (which is usually miles or
>> kilometers as measured from an end of the road/railroad/trail) to appear in
>> the "HNO" field?
>> 
>> I think yes, which means that the field is misnamed.  I would suspect that
>> the appetite of the work group to actually change the name of the field
>> would be low, although I would probably like to do something that would
>> generalize the use of the field.
>> 
>> A more subtle question.  In 4119, under HNO, it says "numeric part only".
>> If the post marker was "125.5" is that numeric enough, or would we have to
>> use the suffix?
> 
> you're differentiating this sufficiently from apartment number, right?
> 
> because I see a street address belonging to an apartment complex,
> then an apartment number belonging to an individual apartment.
> 
> If you are saying the HNO is the street address "number" (and not
> confused by the apartment number) - then this generalization is agreeable.
> 
> 
>> Brian
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> Geopriv at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> 
>