idnits 2.17.1
draft-ietf-geopriv-revised-civic-lo-05.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this
to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document
(see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now.
-- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 16.
-- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on
line 558.
-- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 569.
-- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 576.
-- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 582.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC4119, but the
abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the
current year
== Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD',
or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please
use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you
mean).
Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph:
The "A6" element is retained for use in those countries that
require this level of detail. Where "A6" was previously used for street
names in [RFC4119], it MUST NOT be used, the "RD" element MUST be used
for thoroughfare data. However, without additional information these
fields MUST not be interchanged when converting between different civic
formats. Where civic address information is obtained from another
format, such as the DHCP form [RFC4776], the "A6" element MUST be copied
directly from the source format.
(Using the creation date from RFC4119, updated by this document, for
RFC5378 checks: 2004-01-14)
-- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you
have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
(See the Legal Provisions document at
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)
-- The document date (February 15, 2007) is 6281 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
No issues found here.
Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 8 comments (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 GEOPRIV WG M. Thomson
3 Internet-Draft J. Winterbottom
4 Updates: 4119 (if approved) Andrew
5 Intended status: Standards Track February 15, 2007
6 Expires: August 19, 2007
8 Revised Civic Location Format for PIDF-LO
9 draft-ietf-geopriv-revised-civic-lo-05.txt
11 Status of this Memo
13 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
14 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
15 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
16 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
20 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
21 Drafts.
23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
34 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 19, 2007.
36 Copyright Notice
38 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
40 Abstract
42 This document defines an XML format for the representation of civic
43 location. This format is designed for use with PIDF Location Object
44 (PIDF-LO) documents. The format is based on the civic address
45 definition in PIDF-LO, but adds several new elements based on the
46 civic types defined for DHCP, and adds a hierarchy to address complex
47 road identity schemes. The format also includes support for the
48 xml:lang language tag and restricts the types of elements where
49 appropriate.
51 Table of Contents
53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
54 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
55 3. Changes from PIDF-LO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
56 3.1. Additional Civic Address Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
57 3.2. New Thoroughfare Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
58 3.2.1. Street Numbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
59 3.2.2. Directionals and other Qualifiers . . . . . . . . . . 7
60 3.3. Country Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
61 3.4. A1 Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
62 3.5. Languages and Scripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
63 3.5.1. Converting from the DHCP Format . . . . . . . . . . . 8
64 3.5.2. Combining Multiple Elements Based on Language
65 Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
66 3.6. Whitespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
67 4. Civic Address Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
68 5. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
69 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
70 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
71 7.1. URN sub-namespace registration for
72 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr' . . . . 14
73 7.2. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
74 7.3. CAtype Registry Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
75 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
76 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
77 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
78 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
79 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
80 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19
82 1. Introduction
84 Since the publication of the original PIDF-LO civic specification, in
85 [RFC4119], it has been found that the specification is lacking a
86 number of additional parameters that can be used to more precisely
87 specify a civic location. These additional parameters have been
88 largely captured in [RFC4776].
90 This document revises the GEOPRIV civic form to include the
91 additional civic parameters captured in [RFC4776]. The document also
92 introduces a hierarchical structure for thoroughfare (road)
93 identification which is employed in some countries. New elements are
94 defined to allow for even more precision in specifying a civic
95 location.
97 2. Terminology
99 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
100 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
101 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
103 The term "thoroughfare" is used in this document to describe a road
104 or part of a road or other access route along which a final point is
105 identified. This is consistent with the definition used in
106 [UPU-S42].
108 3. Changes from PIDF-LO
110 3.1. Additional Civic Address Types
112 [RFC4776] provides a full set of parameters that may be used to
113 describe a civic location. Specifically [RFC4776] lists several
114 civic address types (CAtypes) that require support in the formal
115 PIDF-LO definition that are not in [RFC4119].
117 These changes include and new elements that are required to support
118 more complex structures for naming street addresses, this is
119 described in more detail in Section 3.2.
121 +---------------+--------+----------------------------+-------------+
122 | New Civic | CAtype | Description | Example |
123 | Field | | | |
124 +---------------+--------+----------------------------+-------------+
125 | BLD | 25 | Building (structure) | Hope |
126 | | | | Theatre |
127 | | | | |
128 | UNIT | 26 | Unit (apartment, suite) | 12a |
129 | | | | |
130 | ROOM | 28 | Room | 450F |
131 | | | | |
132 | PLC | 29 | Place-type | office |
133 | | | | |
134 | PCN | 30 | Postal community name | Leonia |
135 | | | | |
136 | POBOX | 31 | Post office box (P.O. box) | U40 |
137 | | | | |
138 | ADDCODE | 32 | Additional Code | 13203000003 |
139 | | | | |
140 | SEAT | 33 | Seat (desk, cubicle, | WS 181 |
141 | | | workstation) | |
142 | | | | |
143 | RD | 34 | Primary road or street | Broadway |
144 | | | | |
145 | RDSEC | 35 | Road section | 14 |
146 | | | | |
147 | RDBR | 36 | Road branch | Lane 7 |
148 | | | | |
149 | RDSUBBR | 37 | Road sub-branch | Alley 8 |
150 | | | | |
151 | PRM | 38 | Road pre-modifier | Old |
152 | | | | |
153 | POM | 39 | Road post-modifier | Extended |
154 +---------------+--------+----------------------------+-------------+
155 Table 1: New Civic PIDF-LO Types
157 A complete description of these types is included in [RFC4776].
159 3.2. New Thoroughfare Elements
161 In some countries a thoroughfare can be broken up into sections, and
162 it is not uncommon for street numbers to be repeated between
163 sections. A road section identifier is required to ensure that an
164 address is unique. For example, "West Alice Parade" has 5 sections,
165 each numbered from 1; unless the section is specified "7 West Alice
166 Parade" could exist in 5 different places. The "RDSEC" element is
167 used to specify the section.
169 Minor streets can share the same name, so that they can only be
170 distinguished by the major thoroughfare with which they intersect.
171 For example, both "West Alice Parade, Section 3" and "Bob Street"
172 could both be interested by a "Carol Lane". The "RDBR" element is
173 used to specify a road branch where the name of the branch does not
174 uniquely identify the road. Road branches MAY also be used where a
175 major thoroughfare is split into sections.
177 Similar to the way that a road branch is associated with a road, a
178 road sub-branch is associated with a road branch. The "RDSUBBR"
179 element is used to identify road sub-branches.
181 The "A6" element is retained for use in those countries that require
182 this level of detail. Where "A6" was previously used for street
183 names in [RFC4119], it MUST NOT be used, the "RD" element MUST be
184 used for thoroughfare data. However, without additional information
185 these fields MUST not be interchanged when converting between
186 different civic formats. Where civic address information is obtained
187 from another format, such as the DHCP form [RFC4776], the "A6"
188 element MUST be copied directly from the source format.
190 The following example figure shows a fictional arrangement of roads
191 where these new thoroughfare elements are applicable.
193 | ||
194 | ---------------||
195 | Carol La. Carol La. || Bob
196 | || St.
197 | West Alice Pde. ||
198 ==========/=================/===============/==========||===========
199 Sec.1 Sec.2 Sec.3 | Sec.4 || Sec.5
200 | ||
201 ----------| Carol ||
202 Alley 2 | La. ||
203 | ||
205 3.2.1. Street Numbering
207 The introduction of new thoroughfare elements affects the
208 interpretation of several of more specific civic address data. In
209 particular, street numbering (the "HNO" element) applies to the most
210 specific road element specified. That is, the first specified
211 element from: "RDSUBBR", "RDBR", "RDSEC", or "RD".
213 3.2.2. Directionals and other Qualifiers
215 The "PRM", "POM", "PRD", "POD" and "STS" elements always apply to the
216 value of the "RD" element only. If road branches or sub-branches
217 require street suffixes or qualifiers, they MUST be included in the
218 "RDBR" or "RDSUBBR" element text.
220 3.3. Country Element
222 The "country" element differs from that defined in [RFC4119] in that
223 it now restricts the value space of the element to two upper case
224 characters, which correspond to the alpha-2 codes in [ISO.3166-1].
226 3.4. A1 Element
228 The "A1" element is used for the top level subdivision within a
229 country. In the absence of a country-specific guide on how to use
230 the A-series of elements, the second part of the ISO 3166-2 code
231 [ISO.3166-2] for a country subdivision SHOULD be used. The ISO
232 3166-2 code is a formed of a country code and hyphen plus a code of
233 one, two or three characters or numerals. For the "A1" element, the
234 leading country code and hyphen are omitted and only the subdivision
235 code is included.
237 For example, the codes for Canada include CA-BC, CA-ON, CA-QC;
238 Luxembourg has just three single character codes: LU-D, LU-G and
239 LU-L; Australia uses both two and three character codes: AU-ACT, AU-
240 NSW, AU-NT; France uses numerical codes for mainland France and
241 letters for territories: FR-75, FR-NC. This results in the following
242 fragments:
244
See RFCXXXX.
448 449 450 END 452 7.2. XML Schema Registration 454 This section registers an XML schema as per the procedures in 455 [RFC3688]. 457 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr 459 Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group, (geopriv@ietf.org), 460 Martin Thomson (martin.thomson@andrew.com). 462 The XML for this schema can be found as the entirety of Section 4 463 of this document. 465 7.3. CAtype Registry Update 467 This document updates the civic address type registry established by 468 [RFC4776]. The "PIDF" column of the CAtypes table has been updated 469 to include the types shown in the first column of Table 1. 471 8. References 473 8.1. Normative References 475 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 476 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 478 [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028] 479 Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes 480 Second Edition", World Wide Web Consortium 481 Recommendation REC-xmlschema-2-20041028, October 2004, 482