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
Yes
(Cullen Jennings)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-07-01)
Unknown
Section 6173, paragraph 36: > The element A5 holds the Katastralgemeindename (cadastral > municipality), the Katastralgemeindekennziffer (the identifier), or This is the only place where Katastralgemeindekennziffer appears in the document - do you mean Katastralgemeindenummer?
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-06-30)
Unknown
Updated to add a forgotten comment... from section 1: For some countries Section 3.4 of [RFC4776] already contains considerations on the use of administrative sub-division elements. It's important to note that those examples are outdated, because RFC 5139 [RFC5139] disallows the use of the 'A6' elements for street names. I suggest that this document register these examples in the new IANA registry as "obsolete" for completeness.