Considerations for Civic Addresses in the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO): Guidelines and IANA Registry Definition
draft-ietf-geopriv-civic-address-recommendations-03
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 5774.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Alexander Mayrhofer , Karl Wolf | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2009-07-09) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Best Current Practice | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 5774 (Best Current Practice) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Cullen Fluffy Jennings | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-geopriv-civic-address-recommendations-03
GEOPRIV K. Wolf
Internet-Draft A. Mayrhofer
Updates: 4776 (if approved) nic.at
Intended status: BCP July 9, 2009
Expires: January 10, 2010
Considerations for Civic Addresses in PIDF-LO - Guidelines and IANA
Registry Definition
draft-ietf-geopriv-civic-address-recommendations-03
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 10, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
This document provides a guideline for creating civic address
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
consideration documents for individual countries, as required by RFC
4776. Furthermore, this document also creates an IANA Registry
referring to such address consideration documents and registers such
an address consideration for Austria.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Specifying PIDF-LO Element Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. General Considerations and Workflow . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Guidelines for Individual Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1. Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2. Country Subdivisions A1-A6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.3. Road and Street Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.4. House Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.5. Local Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.6. Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.7. Address Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.8. Other Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. PIDF-LO Civic Address Consideration Registry . . . . . . . 14
6.1.1. Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.2. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.3. Registry Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1.4. Registration Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. Registration Request for Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.3. Registration of the considerations in RFC 4776 as
obsolete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Civic Address Considerations Registration for the
Austrian building and habitation registry . . . . . . 19
A.1. Civic Address Format in Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.2. Sample Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.3. Address Codes in Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.4. Austrian Addresses in PIDF-LO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.4.1. Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.4.2. Country Subdivisions A1-A6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.4.3. Road and Street Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
A.4.4. House Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A.4.5. Local Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A.4.6. Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A.4.7. Additional Code Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A.4.8. Other Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
A.4.9. Elements not to be used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A.5. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.6. IANA Registration Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
1. Introduction
The "Presence Information Data Format Location Object" (PIDF-LO)
[RFC4119] is an object format for carrying geographical information
on the Internet. PIDF-LO can contain civic address information, and
supports a range of "civic address types" (CATypes) to hold
individual attributes of such addresses (see Section 2.2.1 of
[RFC4119] and Section 3.1 of [RFC5139]).
In many use cases, PIDF-LOs are populated with data from long-
established sources, like postal or governmental building registers,
line information databases and yellow / white pages of infrastructure
providers, or official residents registers. The structure and format
of data from such sources is almost always different from PIDF-LO's
CAtypes definition - additionally, structure and format of those
sources differs from country to country.
To make use of such existing data sources, transposing that data into
PIDF-LO format is required. With no guidelines available on how to
map source Fields into CAtype Elements, different creators of PIDF-LO
documents might end up with different results, even when using the
same data source - which reduces interoperability and increases the
risk of misinterpretation by receivers.
Therefore, civic address considerations are necessary to ensure
uniform usage of PIDF-LO Elements for such data sources. [RFC4776]
explicitly requests such documents to be provided, but does neither
define their structure nor a way to publish them. This memo provides
documentation on how to create such civic address considerations, and
requests the creation of an IANA Registry to store references to such
documents. Furthermore, a civic address consideration for Austria is
provided in Appendix A to be registered in the IANA Registry.
Section 3.4 of [RFC4776] contains some example considerations
regarding the use of administrative sub-division elements for Canada,
Germany, Japan, Korea and the United States. This document IANA
registers these examples as "obsolete" (see Section 6.3).
Section 3.4 of [RFC4776] also contains instructions on the creation
of Civic Address Consideration documents on page 8. This document
updates this section, and replaces said instructions with Section 4
and 5 of this memo.
The guidelines in this document have been created with a focus on
formal application of PIDF-LO (such as conveying location during an
emergency call). It is not intended to forbid other, more informal
uses of PIDF-LO that may not follow any formal mapping
specifications. An example usecase of such informal usage may be the
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
transmission of PIDF-LO documents during an instant messaging session
between humans. Such use may, however, imply some drawbacks like
prohibiting automatic processing of civic addresses from such a
PIDF-LO.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
In addition, this document uses "Field" to refer to a field of a
civic address data source, and "Element" to refer to a CAType element
of a PIDF-LO.
3. Requirements
The following requirements apply to defining civic address mapping
considerations:
o The considerations document MUST identify the data source to which
the definitions apply. A brief description of its structure
SHOULD be provided as well.
o For any data source, just one active mapping definition should
exist in order to reduce the risk of ambiguous interpretation.
o The document MUST include instructions for any Field that occurs
in the data. For any of the Fields, the document MUST describe
whether the Field is required, optional, or must not be used in
the mapping procedure.
o Instructions MUST be included for any CAtype Element that is
registered by the time the document is created. Those
instructions MUST include information whether an Element is
required, optional, or must not be used in that mapping. In case
the set of CAtypes is revised by the IETF, the address
consideration document SHOULD be updated. Until an update is
approved, the existing mapping procedure MUST be used.
o Address mapping procedures SHOULD be reversible, so that location
recipients can identify the corresponding record in the original
data source (given they have access to that source).
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
o For any source data Field that is required or optional, at least
one example mapping MUST be provided.
o In many cases, data sources used in the mapping process might be
subject to access restrictions. Such restrictions (as imposed on
the original data) MUST also be imposed on the resulting PIDF-LO
documents. The considerations document SHOULD note such
restrictions in its Security Considerations section.
Although the mapping is defined in a national way and the actual
meaning of several PIDF-LO Elements may not be clear to an outsider,
at least the country element tells in what context this PIDF-LO was
created. In case of emergency calls, a PIDF-LO would just be passed
to a PSAP in the same country as the location generator anyway.
However, in a border region there might be exceptions and the PIDF-LO
could be sent to a neighboring country. The PIDF-LO can still be
passed on to a PSAP in the right country (based on the country
element), or the PSAP might be aware of the mapping scheme used in
the neighboring country.
A consistent mapping is also very important for checking if two
PIDF-LO documents describe the same location. When civic address
Fields are put into different PIDF-LO Elements, it may be difficult
to identify whether or not two PIDF-LOs describe identical addresses.
4. Specifying PIDF-LO Element Usage
The purpose of the civic address considerations for an individual
data source is to create interoperability by specifying a common list
of PIDF-LO Elements to be used, and by defining the mapping between
these Elements and the Fields of the respective data source.
4.1. General Considerations and Workflow
The workflow for creating an address considerations document is as
follows:
1. Describe the data source to which the address considerations
document applies.
2. Identify all Fields from the data source, and decide for each of
the Fields whether or not it is to be used for the purpose of
creating PIDF-LO documents. In the considerations document, all
Fields must be listed (or at least state which Fields are
considered in the mapping and clearly state that the other Fields
MUST NOT be used).
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
3. For each of the Fields that is required or optional, specify a
clear mapping instruction according to the guidelines below.
4. Provide a list of all CAtypes registered, and describe their
level of usage in this mapping (or combine it with the list of
Fields above and clearly list which Elements are not used for the
mapping procedure). For Elements that are not described in
detail state whether they MUST NOT be used at all or they may be
used without further restriction.
5. Provide examples of source data and mapping results
Civic address fields are designed to be generic containers. In some
cases, Fields clearly correspond to such a container; however, in
some other cases, identifying the correct container might require
some approximation. For example, in some countries the RD (road)
Element might also be appropriate for other thoroughfares, like
waterways or tunnels.
Fields that are identified to have the same meaning as one of the
CAtypes SHOULD be directly mapped to that CAtype Element.
Where CAtype usage diverges from the original specification, the
mapping definition of Fields that are mapped to that Element SHOULD
include a discussion of the differences.
Fields that do not fit into an existing CAtype: Even though the list
of CAtypes could be extended, it is not feasible to add new elements
for every new Field in every data source in every country.
Therefore, unless new generic CAtypes are specified by the IETF, only
existing elements can be used, which leaves the following options:
1. Concatenate several civic address fields into a single PIDF-LO
element (define delimiters if applicable and make sure the
separate civic address parts can be retrieved again)
2. Use a PIDF-LO element that is unused so far
Note: Obviously, the first option is required if the number of Fields
that are used in the mapping procedure is greater than the number of
existing CAtype Elements.
Note that the xml:lang attribute should be present in PIDF-LO XML
documents according to RFC 5139.
4.2. Guidelines for Individual Elements
The following sections discuss individual PIDF-LO Elements and
describe what to consider for each Element when defining civic
address considerations. It is RECOMMENDED to follow a similar
structure for considerations documents.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
4.2.1. Country
The country element must hold the alpha-2 codes from ISO 3166-1
[refs.ISO3166-1] in upper case characters as clarified in Section 3.3
of RFC 5139 [RFC5139].
This element cannot be redefined on a national basis since it
identifies the country itself. This element is used to identify
which national mapping for civic addresses has been used in a
specific PIDF-LO.
Example for Austria: <country>AT</country>
4.2.2. Country Subdivisions A1-A6
The elements A1 to A6 are used to hold national subdivision
identifiers, with A1 holding the top-level subdivision identifier.
A1 may either contain the second part of ISO 3166-2 [refs.ISO3166-2]
(see section 3.4 of RFC 5139 [RFC5139]), or values as described in
the address consideration document. Elements "A2" to "A6" may
contain additional levels of subdivisions (see section 2.2.1 of RFC
4119).
For A1, an address consideration document MUST state whether ISO
3166-2 codes are to be used exclusively; alternatively it should
define a list of values to be used (for example, subdivision names).
In either case, A1 MUST NOT be redefined for any other use than
describing top level subdivisions.
For each of the A2 - A6 Elements that is required or optional, the
document SHOULD define the set of allowed values, either by listing
them, or by referring to such a list.
Example for Austria:
A1 province (Bundesland)
A2 political district (politischer Bezirk) name or identifier
A3 commune (Gemeinde) name or identifier
A4 village (Ortschaft) name or identifier
A5 cadastral municipality (Katastralgemeinde) name or identifier
A6 must not be used. For more details see the example in
Appendix A.4.2.
4.2.3. Road and Street Names
PIDF-LO contains the following Elements related to road names: RD,
RDSEC, RDBR, RDSUBADDR, PRM, POM (section 3.1 and 3.2 of RFC 5139
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
[RFC5139]) and PRD, POD, STS (section 3.4 of [RFC4776]). Note: The
use of the A6 Element for street names is not valid any more (Section
3.2 of RFC 5139 [RFC5139]).
Besides the basic specification of which of those Elements are
required, optional or not to be used, an address considerations
document may also describe more complicated dependencies (for
example, "RD is optional, but required if any other road name Element
is used").
For any required or optional element, the relation of those Elements
to Fields of the data source used MUST be described, as well as
special considerations (like concatenation of Fields into an Element)
if they apply. The usage of the Element STS (street suffix) SHOULD
be consistent. In case no suffixes are known in a data source, or it
is common to write the street name and the suffix together, the STS
Element SHOULD be left out completely. If suffixes may be
abbreviated the common abbreviations SHOULD be defined.
Example for Austria:
RD: street name
All other road Elements must not be used. Street suffixes are
already included in the "street name" Field, and must not be
abbreviated.
4.2.4. House Numbers
PIDF-LO specifies two Elements related to house numbers: HNO ("house
number", numeric part only) and HNS ("house number suffix") (see
section 3.4 of RFC 4776). However, in many countries house numbers
have a more complex format. In any case, a clear definition is
REQUIRED to minimize confusion potential.
An address considerations document should provide the following
information with regards to house numbers: If the structure of house
numbers fits the HNO/HNS structure, the document MUST mandate to use
those fields as described in RFC 4776. If the structure of house
numbers does not directly fit into those two Elements, the document
MUST define strategies on how to map source Fields into Elements.
Besides HNO and HNS, LOC and BLD could be considered for carrying
house number information.
The document SHOULD describe whether abbreviations of house number
information is valid or not. If abbreviations are used, they MUST be
clearly defined. If house number consists of more than one number,
or multiple prefixes and suffixes may coexist, a delimiter symbol and
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
a clear rule on how to concatenate all this data into the HNO and HNS
element might be necessary. Whenever concatenating data into one
Element, keep in mind that the location recipient might want to
separate the data again.
Example from Austria:
HNO: concatenate all the data elements of Austrian house numbers into
this single PIDF-LO Element in a defined order with delimiter symbols
(see Appendix A.4.4 for the complete definition).
HNS: Usage not allowed since there may be multiple suffixes for the
different parts of the house number.
LOC and BLD are not to be used to reflect house number information.
4.2.5. Local Names
PIDF-LO contains three elements to reflect local names: LMK, LOC, NAM
(section 3.4 of RFC 4776). Such local names may be of importance for
the identification of a location, and may either coexist with a valid
civic address or (in some cases) no address may be assigned so that
the local names itself identifies the location. In rural regions for
example, a farm name may be more common than a street address to
identify a location. Landmarks typically don't have any civic
address information assigned. Therefore, local names may assist in
finding a "street name" type address, but they might also be the
authoritative (and only) civic location information.
For any required or optional Element out of LMK, LOC, NAM the
considerations document should state potential values (source data)
for the element. In the case that multiple values for an Element may
occur, a concatenation / selection strategy should be described.
Concatenation using ";" as separator is recommended, unless this
character also appears in the source Fields.
If local name information and "common" address information is both
available and used, the document SHOULD discuss the relation between
those two address information types, and expected behaviour of
location recipients.
Example from Austria:
NAM: contains the "Vulgoname" (local name), multiple local names are
separated by a semicolon (if applicable)
LMK: contains the farm name (just one name possible) (if applicable)
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
LOC: can be used without restriction for additional location
information (as per RFC 4119)
The "Vulgoname" is useful to identify the location within its
locality, since official addresses especially in rural regions might
not be well known.
4.2.6. Floors
PIDF-LO defines the element FLR to hold floor information, but does
not further specify its content. Section 2.1 of RFC 3825 provides
guidance about floor numbering, but is not directly related to
PIDF-LO.
An address considerations document SHOULD clearly specify how to
express floors using the FLR element. Following the above mentioned
guidance is RECOMMENDED; however, local nomenclature might require a
completely different system. The document SHOULD specify whether
only numbers, text, or both are allowed in the FLR element. If there
are standard values for certain floors, they SHOULD be listed.
Abbreviations SHOULD be avoided, unless they are the primary (well
known) way of identifying floors.
Example from Austria:
If floor numbers are to be mapped, the FLR Element MUST be used.
Numbers and text are both allowed. The first floor (<FLR>1</FLR>) is
the first "full" floor above the floor at street level. The floor at
street level is <FLR>EG</FLR> or <FLR>0</FLR>. There might be
intermediate floors, especially between the floor at street level and
the "first floor". Such intermediate floors have names like
"Mezzanine", "Erster Halbstock" ("first half floor"), "Zweiter
Halbstock" ("second half floor"), and have local meanings.
4.2.7. Address Codes
Address codes are available in several countries in different forms
(for estates, buildings or usable units for example). These codes
identify an address record, and MAY be placed in the ADDCODE element
in PIDF-LO. Address codes can help the location recipient to
determine the location, and to identify the original record in the
data source. Depending on the type of code, the code alone (without
any other Elements) may even be sufficient to fully identify an
address within a country.
In such cases, a PIDF-LO containing just the country and ADDCODE
elements might provide enough information to retrieve a civic
address, given the location recipient has access to the respective
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
source database.
A civic address considerations document SHOULD specify whether and in
which applications the use of the ADDCODE Element is allowed. If
ADDCODE is used, its relation to the remaining Elements MUST be
clearly stated. If several namespaces for address codes exist in a
country, a mechanism to distinguish the different code spaces MUST be
described.
Examples from Austria:
Statistik Austria provides 4 codes: Adresscode (AdrCD), Adresssubcode
(AdrsubCD), Objektnummer (ObjNr) and Nutzungseinheitenlaufnummer
(NtzLnr).
The following format SHOULD be used:
<ADDCODE>AdrCD=1234567;AdrsubCD=123;
ObjNr=2333211;NtzLnr=0001</ADDCODE>
4.2.8. Other Elements
This section lists all PIDF-LO Elements that have not been discussed
so far.
To specify the location inside a building, the following Elements can
be useful:
o UNIT
o ROOM
o SEAT
The following Elements are to be used for the representation of
postal codes:
o PC
o PCN
o POBOX
To describe the place-type or the building, the following Elements
are available:
o PLC - Place-type (see [RFC4589])
o BLD - Building (structure)
For any of those Elements that are required or optional in a mapping,
the semantics of its contents must be described, if it differs from
the definition in the PIDF-LO base documents.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
It is RECOMMENDED that the elements SEAT, UNIT and ROOM remain to be
used for identifying a location inside a building. They MAY be used
by the owner of the respective building if a considerations document
does not restrict their use. For example, an airport could decide to
place the gate number in the UNIT element, and a location recipient
could identify that PIDF-LO by the value of the PLC Element. The
name of the airport could be placed in NAM.
5. Security Considerations
RFC 4119 contains general security considerations for handling PIDF-
LOs.
6. IANA Considerations
This document requests creation of the registry "PIDF-LO Civic
Address Consideration Registry", according to the following
definitions. Furthermore, this document requests registration of a
civic address considerations document for Austrian addresses as
provided in the Appendix of this document and also registers the
considerations of RFC 4776 as obsolete.
6.1. PIDF-LO Civic Address Consideration Registry
6.1.1. Structure
The IANA Registry contains the following fields:
o Country-Code: Either the ISO 3166 alpha-two code of the country to
which the consideration applies or "other" in case the
consideration document is not specific to a particular country.
This field is to be defined by the requestor.
o Serial Number: A number that uniquely identifies a considerations
document within a certain "Country-Code" field value. Serial
Numbers are sequentially assigned by IANA per "Country-Code"
value, start at zero, and are never reused.
o Reference to specification: This field contains a reference to the
considerations document.
o Requestor: The author of the document.
o Status: One of "active" or "obsolete". When the document is
registered by IANA, the status is first set to "active" by IANA.
Experts may later request changing the status to "obsolete",
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
especially if there is an updated version of the considerations
document available. Authors of consideration documents must
contact the experts if they wish to change the status of the
document.
Note: The combination of "Country-Code" and "Serial Number" fields
uniquely identify a considerations document in the registry (for
example, "AT-0", "US-0", "US-1" or "other-0").
6.1.2. Registration Template
For registration of address considerations documents in the registry,
requestors SHOULD use the following template. The template SHOULD be
contained in the considerations document itself.
<record>
<country> <!-- Country-Code --> </country>
<serial> <!-- assigned by IANA --> </serial>
<reference>
<!-- URI to the considerations document -->
</reference>
<requesters>
<!-- Change accordingly -->
<xref type="person" data="John_Doe"/>
<xref type="person" data="Jane_Dale"/>
</requesters>
<status> <!-- assigned by IANA --> </status>
</record>
<people>
<person id="John_Doe">
<name> <!-- Firstname Lastname --> </name>
<org> <!-- Organisation Name --> </org>
<uri> <!-- mailto: or http: URI --> </uri>
<updated> <!-- date format YYYY-MM-DD --> </updated>
</person>
<!-- repeat person section for each person -->
</people>
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
6.1.3. Registry Location
Approved registrations are published in the IANA registry named
"PIDF-LO Civic Address Consideration Registry", which is available at
the following URI: XXX ((TO BE DEFINED BY IANA)).
Registrations are sorted by ascending order by the country code, and
by serial number within country code values. Registrations with
country code of "other" are put at the end of the list.
6.1.4. Registration Procedure
Following the policies outlined in [RFC5226], new address
considerations are added to the registry after Expert Review (see
Section 4.1 in RFC 5226). The Expert will generally check if the
submitted address considerations conforms the civic address
guidelines in this document (see Section 4). If in doubt, the
Experts SHOULD consult the GEOPRIV mailing list or it's dedicated
successor. If possible, the Experts SHOULD check the available
documentation on which the address consideration is based.
6.2. Registration Request for Austria
This document requests registration of the Civic Address
Considerations for addresses from the official Austrian Building and
Habitation registry, according to the registration procedure
described above. The required information is contained in Appendix
A.
6.3. Registration of the considerations in RFC 4776 as obsolete
Since this document updates RFC 4776, the considerations on the sub-
division elements in Section 3.4 of RFC 4776 for Canada, Germany,
Japan, Korea and the United States are obsolete. The following IANA
registration records register them in the IANA Registry as obsolete.
Canada:
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
<record>
<country>CA</country>
<serial> <!-- assigned by IANA --> </serial>
<reference>urn:ietf:rfc:4776</reference>
<requesters>
<xref type="person" data="Henning_Schulzrinne"/>
</requesters>
<status>obsolete</status>
</record>
<people>
<person id="Henning_Schulzrinne">
<name>Henning Schulzrinne</name>
<org>Columbia University</org>
<uri>mailto:hgs+geopriv@cs.columbia.edu</uri>
<updated>2009-01-09</updated>
</person>
</people>
Germany:
<record>
<country>DE</country>
<serial> <!-- assigned by IANA --> </serial>
<reference>urn:ietf:rfc:4776</reference>
<requesters>
<xref type="person" data="Henning_Schulzrinne"/>
</requesters>
<status>obsolete</status>
</record>
<people>
<person id="Henning_Schulzrinne">
<name>Henning Schulzrinne</name>
<org>Columbia University</org>
<uri>mailto:hgs+geopriv@cs.columbia.edu</uri>
<updated>2009-01-09</updated>
</person>
</people>
Japan:
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
<record>
<country>JP</country>
<serial> <!-- assigned by IANA --> </serial>
<reference>urn:ietf:rfc:4776</reference>
<requesters>
<xref type="person" data="Henning_Schulzrinne"/>
</requesters>
<status>obsolete</status>
</record>
<people>
<person id="Henning_Schulzrinne">
<name>Henning Schulzrinne</name>
<org>Columbia University</org>
<uri>mailto:hgs+geopriv@cs.columbia.edu</uri>
<updated>2009-01-09</updated>
</person>
</people>
Korea:
<record>
<country>KR</country>
<serial> <!-- assigned by IANA --> </serial>
<reference>urn:ietf:rfc:4776</reference>
<requesters>
<xref type="person" data="Henning_Schulzrinne"/>
</requesters>
<status>obsolete</status>
</record>
<people>
<person id="Henning_Schulzrinne">
<name>Henning Schulzrinne</name>
<org>Columbia University</org>
<uri>mailto:hgs+geopriv@cs.columbia.edu</uri>
<updated>2009-01-09</updated>
</person>
</people>
United States:
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
<record>
<country>US</country>
<serial> <!-- assigned by IANA --> </serial>
<reference>urn:ietf:rfc:4776</reference>
<requesters>
<xref type="person" data="Henning_Schulzrinne"/>
</requesters>
<status>obsolete</status>
</record>
<people>
<person id="Henning_Schulzrinne">
<name>Henning Schulzrinne</name>
<org>Columbia University</org>
<uri>mailto:hgs+geopriv@cs.columbia.edu</uri>
<updated>2009-01-09</updated>
</person>
</people>
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Martin Thomson and Richard Barnes for
reviewing the document, and Gregor Jaenin for contributing insights
into the Austrian civic address data format.
Appendix A. Civic Address Considerations Registration for the Austrian
building and habitation registry
The Austrian "Gebaeude- und Wohnungsregistergesetz" (building and
habitation registry law) is the legal basis for the obligation to
provide a registry of civic addresses, buildings and their usable
units (subdivisions of buildings). The registry is operated by
"Statistik Austria GmbH", a fully governmental owned company.
Responsibility for keeping records in the registry up to date is an
obligation to the local administration of the individual townships.
The data format definition for the individual records is publicly
available (data access itself is however restricted). Hence, a
uniform address data base for the whole Austria is available. A
detailed description of the Statistik Austria civic address data
format is contained in section Appendix A.1.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
A.1. Civic Address Format in Austria
Statistik Austria data describes estates, buildings and usable units
[refs.merkmalskatalog]. On a single estate there may be any number
of buildings. Apartment houses that have more than one staircase,
are split up in separate buildings at every staircase. In every
building, there may be several usable units. For example, an
apartment house may have several apartments, counting as separate
usable units. Moreover, one building may have more than one address,
but at least one address. Below, the address Fields for estates
(Table 1), buildings (Table 2) and usable units (Table 3) are shown.
The ADDCODE, A5 and PCN Elements are optional, and the other Elements
MUST be used if the data source contains their corresponding Fields.
The Elements A1 and A2 (not listed in the tables) SHOULD also be used
if data is available. Exception: when using the address codes only
(access to the codes is necessary for creator and receiver of the
location information), just the ADDCODE and country Elements are
mandatory, the other Elements can be used optionally of course.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
+-------------------------+-------------------------------+---------+
| Statistik Austria name | Explanation | PIDF-LO |
| | | Element |
+-------------------------+-------------------------------+---------+
| Adresscode | address identifier | ADDCODE |
| | | |
| Gemeindename, | commune name and identifier | A3 |
| Gemeindekennziffer | | |
| | | |
| Ortschaftsname, | village name and identifier | A4 |
| Ortschaftskennziffer | | |
| | | |
| Strassenname, | street name and identifier | RD |
| Strassenkennziffer | | |
| | | |
| Katastralgemeindename, | cadastral municipality and | A5 |
| Katastralgemeindenummer | identifier | |
| | | |
| Hausnummerntext | text in front of the house | HNO |
| | number | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - 1. Teil - | first part of the house | HNO |
| Nummer | number, numeric | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - 1. Teil - | first part of the house | HNO |
| Buchstabe | number, character | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - | links first and Bis part of | HNO |
| Verbindungszeichen Teil | house number | |
| 1 -> Bis | | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - Bis-Nummer | number of bis part of house | HNO |
| | number | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - | character of bis part of | HNO |
| Bis-Buchstabe | house number | |
| | | |
| Hausnummernbereich | indicates if all house | HNO |
| | numbers specified or just odd | |
| | or even numbers are stated | |
| | | |
| Postleitzahl | postal code | PC |
| | | |
| Postleitzahlengebiet | postal community code | PCN |
| | | |
| Vulgoname | local name | NAM |
| | | |
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
| Hofname | farm name | LMK |
+-------------------------+-------------------------------+---------+
Table 1: Civic Address Fields for Estates
+------------------------+--------------------------------+---------+
| Statistik Austria name | Explanation | PIDF-LO |
| | | Element |
+------------------------+--------------------------------+---------+
| Adresssubcode | address subcode | ADDCODE |
| | | |
| Objektnummer | object code | ADDCODE |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - | links Bis and second part of | HNO |
| Verbindungszeichen | house number | |
| Teil Bis -> Teil 2 | | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - 2. Teil | second part of the house | HNO |
| - Nummer | number, numeric | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - 2. Teil | second part of the house | HNO |
| - Buchstabe | number, character | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - | links second and third part of | HNO |
| Verbindungszeichen | house number | |
| Teil 2-> Teil 3 | | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - 3. Teil | third part of the house | HNO |
| - Nummer | number, numeric | |
| | | |
| Hausnummer - 3. Teil | third part of the house | HNO |
| - Buchstabe | number, character | |
| | | |
| Gebaeudeunterscheidung | for differentiation of | HNO |
| | buildings, e.g. Maierweg 27 | |
| | Hotel vs. Maierweg 27 | |
| | Appartmenthaus | |
| | | |
+------------------------+--------------------------------+---------+
Table 2: Additional Civic Address Fields for Buildings
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
+-----------------------------+---------------------------+---------+
| Statistik Austria name | Explanation | PIDF-LO |
| | | Element |
+-----------------------------+---------------------------+---------+
| Nutzungseinheitenlaufnummer | usable unit code | ADDCODE |
| | | |
| Tuernummer | door number | HNO |
| | | |
| Topnummer | unit number | HNO |
| | | |
| Lagebeschreibung | for verbal description | HNO |
| | | |
| Lage | describes if the usable | FLR |
| | unit is in the basement, | |
| | mezzanine, attic floor, | |
| | ... (but not the floor | |
| | number) | |
| | | |
| Stockwerk | floor | FLR |
| | | |
+-----------------------------+---------------------------+---------+
Table 3: Additional Civic Address Fields for usable units
Note: "Floors" in Austria (as in most parts of Europe) are counted
differently compared to the US. The "1st floor" in Austria is
actually the floor above the floor at street level (2nd floor in US),
not considering the fact that in old buildings there might be even
more floors between street level and 1st floor, like "mezzanine",
"2nd mezzanine". So, an Austrian "1st floor" could well be the "4th
floor" according to US nomenclature.
According to Statistik Austria [refs.adrwarten], 81.5% of Austrian
addresses are of the simple type Musterstrasse 1 (Musterstrasse is an
example street name). 5% of all addresses have an additional
character, like Musterstrasse 1b. 1% of Austrian addresses look like
Musterstrasse 21A - 23A. For 8% of addresses, an additional separator
is necessary, like Musterstrasse 10 Haus 1 Stiege 2 or Musterstrasse
20 Gruppe A Reihe 1 Parzelle 13 or Musterstrasse 30 Weg 1 Parzelle
10. Very seldom, there are so called special addresses (0.03%), for
example Musterstrasse gegenueber 3A, meaning this address is actually
opposite of house number 3A. Rather surprisingly, 4.47% of Austrian
addresses contain the identifier of the estate since no house number
is assigned at all, for example: Musterstrasse GNR 1234, or
Musterstrasse GNR .12/4 Kirche (this type of addresses is common for
churches) or a real example in Stockerau: Kolomaniwoerth GNR 1583.
This identifier is stored by Statistik Austria as Hausnummerntext.
Otherwise one could misinterpret this number as a house number, what
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
would be definitely wrong.
A.2. Sample Addresses
In order to clarify the Austrian civic address format, this section
provides some exemplary addresses:
1234 Musterstadt, Hauptstrasse 1a - 5a Block 1b Haus 2c Stiege 1
Postleitzahl: 1234
Stadt: Musterstadt
Strasse: Hauptstrasse
Hausnummer - 1. Teil - Nummer: 1
Hausnummer - 1. Teil - Buchstabe: a
Hausnummer - Verbindungszeichen Teil 1 -> Bis: -
Hausnummer - 2. Teil - Nummer: 5
Hausnummer - 2. Teil - Buchstabe: a
Hausnummer - Verbindungszeichen Teil Bis -> Teil 2: Block
Hausnummer - 2. Teil - Nummer: 1
Hausnummer - 2. Teil - Buchstabe: b
Hausnummer - Verbindungszeichen Teil 2-> Teil 3: Haus
Hausnummer - 3. Teil - Nummer: 2
Hausnummer - 3. Teil - Buchstabe: c
Gebaeudeunterscheidung: Stiege 1
1234 Musterstadt, Musterstrasse 13 Hotel
Postleitzahl: 1234
Stadt: Musterstadt
Strasse: Musterstrasse
Hausnummer - 1. Teil - Nummer: 13
Gebaeudeunterscheidung: Hotel
6020 Innsbruck, Anichstrasse vor 35
Postleitzahl: 6020
Stadt: Innsbruck
Strasse: Anichstrasse
Hausnummerntext: vor ("in front of")
Hausnummer: 35
6173 Oberperfuss, Riedl 3097 (Pfarrkirche)
Postleitzahl: 6173
Stadt: Oberperfuss
Strasse: Riedl
Hausnummerntext: 3097
(since the estate identifier is 81305 3097 where 81305 is the
Katastralgemeindenummer (cadastral municipality) and no house
number is assigned)
Vulgoname: Pfarrkirche
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
A.3. Address Codes in Austria
Statistik Austria registers 4 codes: Adresscode, Adresssubcode,
Objektnummer and the Nutzungseinheitenlaufnummer. The Adresscode (7
digits) is a unique code for an address in Austria. The
Adressregister maps the Adresscode to the civic address. If there is
a building located at an address, there is also an Adresssubcode (3
digits) assigned. Every building at an address has its own
Adresssubcode (assigned sequentially starting with 001, 002, 003 and
so on) in order to distinguish between buildings at the same address.
Furthermore, every building located in Austria has its own unique
code, the Objektnummer (7 digits). This code identifies the building
independent of the Adresscode. That's because addresses are subject
to change while the building may persist. To differ multiple usable
units inside a building, the Nutzungseinheitenlaufnummer (4 digits)
is used. This code is also assigned in sequential order for each
building.
Besides, every address and building is geocoded by Statistik Austria.
Hence, if every PIDF-LO location object would carry data in the
format of Statistik Austria and every PSAP would use the database of
Statistik Austria for mapping, a time saving, definite mapping
without irregularities could be achieved.
Besides these codes, Statistik Austria maintains reference numbers
for communes, localities or streets, to mention just a few.
A.4. Austrian Addresses in PIDF-LO
The following subsections define the mapping procedure.
A.4.1. Country
The country element for Austria must be set to AT, since this is the
ISO 3166-1 [refs.ISO3166-1] alpha-2 code for Austria.
<country>AT</country>
The usage of the ISO 3166 code is demanded by RFC 4119 [RFC4119] and
RFC 5139 [RFC5139] proposes to use upper case characters only.
A.4.2. Country Subdivisions A1-A6
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
A1 province (Bundesland), Section A.4.2.1
A2 political district name or identifier (politischer Bezirk),
Section A.4.2.2
A3 commune name or identifier (Gemeinde), Section A.4.2.3
A4 village name or identifier (Ortschaft), Section A.4.2.4
A5 cadastral municipality name or identifier (Katastralgemeindename
or Katastralgemeindenummer), Section A.4.2.5
Element A6 must not be used.
Last, there is an exception to mention concerning the Austrian
capital Vienna (Wien). The city of Vienna is equal to its political
district and even the province is called Vienna. Nevertheless,
Vienna is separated in 23 districts within the same political
district. Consequently, an address in Vienna would look like:
<country>AT</country>
<A1>Wien</A1>
<A2>Wien</A2>
<A3>Wien</A3>
<A4>Favoriten</A4> or <A4>10<A4>
<A5>Inzersdorf Stadt<A5>
The element A4, holding the city division, can hold the name or the
number of the district.
A.4.2.1. A1 Element
As proposed in RFC 5139 [RFC5139], for the PIDF-LO element A1, the
second part of ISO 3166-2 [refs.ISO3166-2] can be used. However, in
Austria it is also common to write out the names of the states.
Table 4 shows the possible values of the A1 element for Austrian
states.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
+------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Bundesland | second part of ISO 3166-2 code |
+------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Burgenland | 1 |
| | |
| K=U+00E4rnten | 2 |
| | |
| Nieder=U+00F6sterreich | 3 |
| | |
| Ober=U+00F6sterreich | 4 |
| | |
| Salzburg | 5 |
| | |
| Steiermark | 6 |
| | |
| Tirol | 7 |
| | |
| Vorarlberg | 8 |
| | |
| Wien | 9 |
+------------------------+--------------------------------+
Table 4: A1 element format for Austria (Note: values are shown in
UTF-8, which is recommended to be used for PIDF-LO)
A.4.2.2. A2 Element
Names of the Austrian political districts are available at Statistik
Austria [refs.bezirke]. These names, the unique code for the
political district or both can be used for the A2 element. If the
content of the A2 element is numeric, obviously the code is provieded
(there is no political district in Austria with a number in its
name). In case both, the name and the code are provided, they are
separated by a semicolon, and the name must be listed first.
The district of "Bruck an der Leitha" could be represented by:
<A2>Bruck an der Leitha<A2> or <A2>307</A2> or
<A2>Bruck an der Leitha;307</A2>
A.4.2.3. A3 Element
The element A3 holds the Gemeindename (commune name) or the
identifier of the Gemeinde, or both separated by a semicolon (the
name must be listed first). If the content of the A3 element
consists of a number only, it is obvious that just the identifier is
provided. Statistik Austria maintains a table with the Gemeindenamen
and identifiers [refs.gemeinden], which must be used as the content
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
for the A3 element, no other spelling is allowed.
Sample:
<A3>Neusiedl am See</A3>
or
<A3>10713</A3>
or
<A3>Neusiedl am See;10713</A3>
A.4.2.4. A4 Element
The element A4 holds the Ortschaftsname (village name), the
Ortschaftskennziffer (the identifier), or both separated by a
semicolon (the name must be listed first). If the content of the A4
element consists of a number only, it is obvious that just the
identifier is provided since there are no Ortschaftsnamen in Austria
which contain a number. Statistik Austria maintains a table with the
Ortschaftsnamen and identifiers [refs.ortschaften], which must be
used as the content for the A4 element, no other spelling is allowed.
Sample:
<A4>Wilfleinsdorf</A4> or <A4>03448</A4> or
<A4>Wilfleinsdorf;03448</A4>
A.4.2.5. A5 Element
The element A5 holds the Katastralgemeindename (cadastral
municipality), the Katastralgemeindenummer (the identifier), or both
separated by a semicolon (the name must be listed first). If the
content of the A5 element consists of a number only, it is obvious
that just the identifier is provided since there are no
Katastralgemeindenamen in Austria which contain a number.
Sample (Vienna, Fuenfhaus):
<A5>Oberbaumgarten</A5> or <A5>1208</A5> or
<A5>Oberbaumgarten;1208</A5>
A.4.3. Road and Street Names
The PIDF-LO element RD holds the complete street name, including the
street suffix. No abbreviations are allowed. No other elements are
needed for streets and must not be used.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
A.4.4. House Numbers
Statistik Austria lists 14 data fields related to the house number of
a building plus another 5 fields for distinction of different usable
units inside a building (including the floor, which has a separate
element in PIDF-LO). Unfortunately, PIDF-LO only defines a single
house number element (HNO, numeric part only) and a house number
suffix element (HNS). Therefore, this section defines a mapping in
order to accommodate all data: All house number data is concatenate
into a single HNO element, even though it is expected to hold numeric
part only.
In order to allow automatic procession of the HNO Element, it is
necessary to use a semicolon as delimiter symbol (Austrian house
numbers do not contain semicolons). The house number parts MUST be
provided in the order as they are listed by the Statistik Austria
document [refs.merkmalskatalog]. For user interface representation,
the semicolon separated format can be transformed by replacing
semicolons by spaces (multiple spaces should be combined) and no
space should be present between a numeric part of a house number part
and its related character.
It is not allowed to use the HNS element for Austrian addresses,
since there are addresses that do not have just a single suffix.
The house number "vor 1 - 1A" (consisting of a house number text
"vor", first part of the house number numeric "1", "-" as the link of
the first and Bis part, "1" as house number bis part numeric, "A" as
character of the bis part) would be mapped to:
<HNO>vor;1;;-;1;A;;;;;;;;;;;</HNO>
A.4.5. Local Names
NAM: contains the Vulgoname (local name), multiple local names are
separated by a semicolon (if applicable)
LMK: contains the farm name (just one name possible) (if applicable)
LOC: can be used without restriction for additional location
information (as per RFC 4119)
A.4.6. Floors
The floor element may contain numbers or text describing the floor.
The first floor (<FLR>1</FLR>) is the floor above the floor at street
level. The floor at street level is <FLR>EG</FLR> or <FLR>0</FLR>.
Other floors may have names like mezzanine, for example. The
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
Statistik Austria data elements Lage and Stockwerk are concatenated
if necessary.
A.4.7. Additional Code Element
The element additional code may be used to hold the codes provided by
Statistik Austria. There is an Adresscode, Adresssubcode,
Objektnummer and a Nutzungseinheitenlaufnummer. These unique codes
identify the location. Actually, these codes alone would be enough,
but requires that the location recipient has access to the database
of Statistik Austria.
If the additional code in a PIDF-LO document is going to hold the
codes from Statistik Austria, the following format should be used:
<ADDCODE>AdrCD=1234567;AdrsubCD=123;
ObjNr=2333211;NtzLnr=0001</ADDCODE>
It is not necessary to provide all codes, but there are some
restrictions: The Adresssubcode cannot be used without an Adresscode.
More restrictions are defined by Statistik Austria. By setting the
country element to AT (see Section 4.2.1), indicating an Austrian
address, the Additional Code element is expected to hold codes from
Statistik Austria only. When creating PIDF-LO documents using
address codes by Statistik Austria, the country and ADDCODE elements
are mandatory.
A.4.8. Other Elements
The elements PC and PCN can hold the data form Statistik Austria, the
POBOX can be used if the post assigned a post office box. At least
the PC element should be present.
PC: Postleitzahl (postal code)
PCN: Postleitzahlengebiet (postal community name)
POBOX: Postfach
The elements UNIT, ROOM, SEAT, PLC and BLD may be used without
further restriction.
A.4.9. Elements not to be used
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
A6
STS
HNS
PRD
POD
RDBR
RDSUBBR
PRM
POM
A.5. Example
This section shows an example mapping of an Austrian address to
PIDF-LO.
Address:
Bundesland: Wien
Politischer Bezirk: Wien
Gemeindename: Wien
9. Bezirk
Strasse: Lazarettgasse
Hausnummer - 1. Teil - Nummer: 13
Hausnummer - 1. Teil - Buchstabe: A
Hausnummer - Verbindungszeichen Teil 1-Bis: -
Hausnummer - Bis-Nummer: 13
Hausnummer - Bis-Buchstabe: C
Postleitzahl: 1090
PIDF-LO:
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
xmlns:cl="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"
entity="pres:123@examplehost">
<tuple id="abcd123456">
<status>
<gp:geopriv>
<gp:location-info>
<cl:civicAddress xml:lang="de">
<cl:country>AT</cl:country>
<cl:A1>Wien</cl:A1>
<cl:A2>Wien</cl:A2>
<cl:A3>Wien</cl:A3>
<cl:A4>9</cl:A4>
<cl:RD>Lazarettgasse</cl:RD>
<cl:HNO>;13;A;-;13;C;;;;;;;;;;;;</cl:HNO>
<cl:PC>1090</cl:PC>
</cl:civicAddress>
</gp:location-info>
<gp:usage-rules>
<gp:retransmission-allowed>yes</gp:retransmission-allowed>
<gp:retention-expiry>2009-11-10T12:00:00Z</gp:retention-expiry>
</gp:usage-rules>
</gp:geopriv>
</status>
<timestamp>2009-02-09T12:00:00Z</timestamp>
</tuple>
</presence>
A.6. IANA Registration Record
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
<record>
<country>AT</country>
<serial> <!-- assigned by IANA --> </serial>
<reference>
<!-- RFC-Editor: the URN to this RFC / -->
</reference>
<requesters>
<xref type="person" data="Alexander_Mayrhofer"/>
<xref type="person" data="Karl_Heinz_Wolf"/>
</requesters>
<status> <!-- assigned by IANA --> </status>
</record>
<people>
<person id="Alexander_Mayrhofer">
<name>Alexander Mayrhofer</name>
<org>nic.at GmbH</org>
<uri>mailto:alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at</uri>
<updated>2009-01-09</updated>
</person>
<person id="Karl_Heinz_Wolf">
<name>Karl Heinz Wolf</name>
<org>nic.at GmbH</org>
<uri>mailto:karlheinz.wolf@nic.at</uri>
<updated>2009-01-09</updated>
</person>
</people>
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4119] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
Format", RFC 4119, December 2005.
[RFC4776] Schulzrinne, H., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
Configuration Information", RFC 4776, November 2006.
[RFC5139] Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Revised Civic Location
Format for Presence Information Data Format Location
Object (PIDF-LO)", RFC 5139, February 2008.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC4589] Schulzrinne, H. and H. Tschofenig, "Location Types
Registry", RFC 4589, July 2006.
8.2. Informative References
[refs.adrwarten]
Statistik Austria, "Handbuch Adress-GWR-Online Teil A
Theoretisches Handbuch Kapitel 2 Warten von Adressen im
Adress-GWR-Online", Jan 2005.
[refs.merkmalskatalog]
Statistik Austria, "Handbuch Adress-GWR-Online Teil C
Anhang 2 Merkmalskatalog", Sept 2004.
[refs.ISO3166-1]
International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for
the representation of names of countries and their
subdivisions - Part 1: Country codes", ISO Standard 3166-
1:1997, 1997.
[refs.ISO3166-2]
International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for
the representation of names of countries and their
subdivisions - Part 2: Country subdivision code", ISO
Standard 3166-2:1998, 1998.
[refs.bezirke]
Statistik Austria, "Politische Bezirke, Gebietsstand
2008", Feb 2008.
[refs.gemeinden]
Statistik Austria, "Gemeindeliste sortiert nach
Gemeindekennziffer, Gebietsstand 2008", Feb 2008.
[refs.ortschaften]
Statistik Austria, "Gemeinden mit Ortschaften und
Postleitzahlen, Gebietsstand 2008", Feb 2008.
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Civic Address Considerations July 2009
Authors' Addresses
Karl Heinz Wolf
nic.at GmbH
Karlsplatz 1/2/9
Wien A-1010
Austria
Phone: +43 1 5056416 37
Email: karlheinz.wolf@nic.at
URI: http://www.nic.at/
Alexander Mayrhofer
nic.at GmbH
Karlsplatz 1/2/9
Wien A-1010
Austria
Phone: +43 1 5056416 34
Email: alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at
URI: http://www.nic.at/
Wolf & Mayrhofer Expires January 10, 2010 [Page 35]