GEOPRIV H. Schulzrinne
Internet-Draft Columbia U.
Expires: December 1, 2005 May 30, 2005
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic
Addresses Configuration Information
draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-06
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 December 1, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document specifies a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4
and DHCPv6) option containing the civic location of the client or the
DHCP server. The Location Configuration Information (LCI) includes
information about the country, administrative units such as states,
provinces and cities, as well as street addresses, postal community
names and building information. The option allows multiple
renditions of the same address in different scripts and languages.
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Format of the DHCP Civic Location Option . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1 Overall Format for DHCPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 Overall Format for DHCPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3 Element Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4 Civic Address Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Postal Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 21
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
1. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUSTNOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALLNOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULDNOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1] and
indicate requirement levels for compliant implementations.
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
2. Introduction
Many end system services can benefit by knowing the approximate
location of the end device. In particular, IP telephony devices need
to know their location to contact the appropriate emergency response
agency and to be found by emergency responders.
There are two common ways to identify the location of an object,
either through geospatial coordinates or by so-called civic
addresses. Geospatial coordinates indicate longitude, latitude and
altitude, while civic addresses indicate a street address.
The civic address is commonly, but not necessearily, closely related
to the postal address, used by the local postal service to deliver
mail. However, not all postal addresses correspond to street
addresses. For example, the author's address is a postal address
that does not appear on any street or building sign. Naturally, post
office boxes would be unsuitable for the purposes described here.
The term 'civil address' or 'jurisdictional address' is also
sometimes used instead of civic address. This document mainly
supports civic addresses, but allows to indicate the postal community
name if it differs from the civic name.
A related document [13] describes a DHCPv4 [2] option for conveying
geospatial information to a device. This draft describes how DHCPv4
and DHCPv6 [5] can be used to convey the civic and postal address to
devices. Both can be used simultaneously, increasing the chance to
deliver accurate and timely location information to emergency
responders.
This document only defines the delivery of location information from
the DHCP server to the client, due to security concerns related to
using DHCP to update the database.
End systems that obtain location information via the mechanism
described here then use other protocol mechanisms to communicate this
information to an emergency call center or to convey it as part of
presence information.
Civic information is useful since it often provides additional,
human-usable information particularly within buildings. Also,
compared to geospatial information, it is readily obtained for most
occupied structures and can often be interpreted even if incomplete.
For example, for many large university or corporate campuses,
geocoding information to building and room granularity may not be
readily available.
Unlike geospatial information, the format for civic and postal
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
information differs from country to country. Thus, this draft
establishes an IANA registry for civic location data fields. The
initial set of data fields is derived from standards published by the
United States National Emergency Number Association (NENA) [16]. It
is anticipated that other countries can reuse many of the data
elements.
The same civic and postal address information can often be rendered
in multiple languages and scripts. For example, Korean addresses are
often shown in Hangul, Latin and Kanji, while some older cities have
multiple language variants (Munich, Muenchen and Monaco, for
example). Since DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 do not currently support a
mechanism to query for a specific script or language, the DHCP server
SHOULD provide all common renderings to the client and MUST provide
at least the rendering in the language and script appropriate to the
location indicated. For example, for use in presence information,
the target may be visiting from a foreign country and want to convey
the information in a format suitable for watchers in its home
country. For emergency services, the rendering in the local language
is likely to be most appropriate. To provide multiple renderings,
the server repeats sequences of address elements, prefixing each with
'language' and/or 'script' element (see Section 3.3). The language
and script remain in effect for subsequent elements until overridden
by another language or script element.
The DHCP server MAY provide location information for multiple
locations related to the target, for example, both the network
element and the network jack itself. This is likely to help in
debugging network problems, for example.
As discussed in Security Considerations (Section 6), the
GEOCONF_CIVIC option SHOULD be returned by DHCPv4 servers only when
the DHCPv4 client has included this option in its 'parameter request
list' (RFC 2131 [2], Section 3.5). Similarly, the
OPTION_GEOCONF_CIVIC option SHOULD be returned by DHCPv6 servers only
when the DHCPv6 client has included this option in its OPTION_ORO.
The DHCPv4 long-options mechanism described in RFC 3396 [8] MUST be
used if the civic address option exceeds the maximum DHCPv4 option
size of 255 octets.
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
3. Format of the DHCP Civic Location Option
3.1 Overall Format for DHCPv4
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| GEOCONF_CIVIC | N | what | country |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| code | civic address elements ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Code GEOCONF_CIVIC: The code for this DHCP option is TBD by IANA.
N: The length of this option is variable. The minimum length is 3.
what: The 'what' element describes which location the DHCP entry
refers to. Currently, three options are defined: the location of
the DHCP server (a value of 0), the location of the network
element believed to be closest to the client (a value of 1) or the
location of the client (a value of 2). Option (2) SHOULD be used,
but may not be known. Options (0) and (1) SHOULD NOT be used
unless it is known that the DHCP client is in close physical
proximity to the server or network element.
country code: The two-letter ISO 3166 country code in capital ASCII
letters, e.g., DE or US. (Civic addresses always contain country
designations, suggesting the use of a fixed-format field to save
space.)
civic address elements: Zero or more elements comprising the civic
and/or postal address, with the format described below
(Section 3.3).
3.2 Overall Format for DHCPv6
The DHCPv6 [5] civic address option refers generally to the client as
a whole.
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_GEOCONF_CIVIC | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| what | country code | .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ .
. civic address elements .
. ... .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
option-code: OPTION_GEOCONF_CIVIC (TBD)
option-len: Length of the Countrycode, 'what' and civic address
elements.
what: See above (Section 3.1).
country code: See above (Section 3.1).
civic address elements: See above (Section 3.1).
3.3 Element Format
For both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6, each civic address element has the
following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CAtype | CAlength | CAvalue ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
CAtype: A one-octet descriptor of the data civic address value.
CAlength: The length, in octets, of the CAvalue, not including the
CAlength field itself.
CAvalue: The civic address value, as described in detail below.
3.4 Civic Address Components
Since each country has different administrative hierarchies, with
often the same (English) names, this specification adopts a simple
hierarchical notation that is then instantiated for each country. We
assume that five levels are sufficient for sub-national divisions
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
above the street level.
All elements are OPTIONAL and can appear in any order.
Component values MUST be encoded as UTF-8 [6]. They SHOULD be
written in mixed case, following the customary spelling. The script
indication (CAtype=128) MUST be written in mixed-case, with the first
letter a capital letter.
Abbreviations MUST NOT be used unless indicated for each element.
Abbreviations do not need a trailing period.
It is RECOMMENDED that all elements in a particular script (CAtype
128) and language (CAtype 0) be grouped together as that reduces the
number of script and language identifiers needed.
For each script and language, elements SHOULD be included in numeric
order from lowest to highest of their CAtype. In general, an element
is labeled in its language and script by the most recent 'language
tag' (CAtype = 0) element preceding it. Since not all elements
depend on the script and language, a client accumulates the elements
by CAtype and then selects the most desirable language and script
rendition if there are multiple elements for the same CAtype.
+----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
| CAtype | label | description |
+----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
| 1 | A1 | national |
| | | subdivisions |
| | | (state, region, |
| | | province, |
| | | prefecture) |
| | | |
| 2 | A2 | county, parish, gun |
| | | (JP), district (IN) |
| | | |
| 3 | A3 | city, township, shi |
| | | (JP) |
| | | |
| 4 | A4 | city division, |
| | | borough, city |
| | | district, ward, |
| | | chou (JP) |
| | | |
| 5 | A5 | neighborhood, block |
| | | |
| 6 | A6 | street |
+----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
Table 1
For specific countries, the administrative sub-divisions are
described below.
CA (Canada): The mapping to NENA designations is shown in
parentheses. A1=province (STA); A2=county (CNA); A3=city or town
(MCN); A6=street (STN).
DE (Germany): A1=state (Bundesstaat); A2=county (Regierungsbezirk);
A3=city (Stadt, Gemeinde); A4=district (Bezirk); A6=street
(Strasse). Street suffixes (STS) are used only for designations
that are a separate word (e.g., Marienthaler Strasse).
JP (Japan): A1=metropolis (To, Fu) or prefecture (Ken, Do); A2=city
(Shi) or rural area (Gun); A3=ward (Ku) or village (Mura); A4=town
(Chou or Machi); A5=city district (Choume); A6=block (Banchi or
Ban).
KR (Korea): A1=province (Do); A2=county (gun); A3=city or village
(ri); A4=urban district (gu); A5=neighborhood (dong); A6=street
(no, ro, ga or gil).
US (United States): The mapping to NENA designations is shown in
parentheses. A1=state (STA), using the the two-letter state and
possession abbreviations recommended by the United States Postal
Service Publication 28 [15], Appendix B; A2=county (CNA); A3=civic
community name (city or town) (MCN); A6=street (STN). A4 and A5
are not used. The civic community name (MCN) reflects the
political boundaries. These may differ from postal delivery
assignments for historical or practical reasons.
Additional CA types appear in many countries and are simply omitted
where they are not needed or known:
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| CAtype | NENA | PIDF | Description | Examples |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 0 | | | language | i-default |
| | | | | [3] |
| | | | | |
| 16 | PRD | PRD | leading | N |
| | | | street | |
| | | | direction | |
| | | | | |
| 17 | POD | POD | trailing | SW |
| | | | street | |
| | | | suffix | |
| | | | | |
| 18 | STS | STS | street | Ave, Platz |
| | | | suffix | |
| | | | | |
| 19 | HNO | HNO | house | 123 |
| | | | number | |
| | | | | |
| 20 | HNS | HNS | house | A, 1/2 |
| | | | number | |
| | | | suffix | |
| | | | | |
| 21 | LMK | LMK | landmark or | Columbia |
| | | | vanity | University |
| | | | address | |
| | | | | |
| 22 | LOC | LOC | additional | South Wing |
| | | | location | |
| | | | information | |
| | | | | |
| 23 | NAM | NAM | name | Joe's |
| | | | (residence | Barbershop |
| | | | and office | |
| | | | occupant) | |
| | | | | |
| 24 | ZIP | PC | postal/zip | 10027-1234 |
| | | | code | |
| | | | | |
| 25 | | | building | Low Library |
| | | | (structure) | |
| | | | | |
| 26 | | | unit | Apt 42 |
| | | | (apartment, | |
| | | | suite) | |
| | | | | |
| 27 | | FLR | floor | 4 |
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
| 28 | | | room number | 450F |
| | | | | |
| 29 | | | placetype | office |
| | | | | |
| 30 | PCN | | postal | Leonia |
| | | | community | |
| | | | name | |
| | | | | |
| 31 | | | post office | 12345 |
| | | | box (P.O. | |
| | | | Box) | |
| | | | | |
| 32 | | | additional | 13203000003 |
| | | | code | |
| | | | | |
| 128 | | | script | Latn |
| | | | | |
| 255 | | | reserved | |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
The CA types labeled in the second column correspond to items from
the NENA "Recommended Formats & Protocols For ALI Data Exchange, ALI
Response & GIS Mapping" [16], but are applicable to most countries.
The "NENA" column refers to the data dictionary name in Exhibit 18 of
[16].
The column labeled PIDF indicates the element name from [14]. (Some
elements were added to this document after the PIDF location object
definition had been completed. These elements currently do not have
a PIDF-LO equivalent.)
Language: The "language" item (CAtype 0) optionally identifies the
language used for presenting the address information, drawing from
the tags for identifying languages in [7]. If omitted, the
default value for this tag is "i-default" [3].
Script: The "script" item (CAtype 128) optionally identifies the
script used for presenting the address information, drawing from
the tags for identifying scripts in ISO 15924 [11]. If omitted,
the default value for this tag is "Latn".
POD, PRD: The abbreviations N, E, S, W, and NE, NW, SE, SW SHOULD be
used for POD (trailing street suffix) and PRD (leading street
direction) in English-speaking countries.
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
STS: STS designates a street suffix. In the United States (US), the
abbreviations recommended by the United States Postal Service
Publication 28 [15], Appendix C, SHOULD be used.
HNS: HNS ("house number") is a modifier to a street address; it does
not identify parts of a street address.
LMK: LMK ("landmark", CAtype 21) is a string name for a location. It
conveys the same information as the street address, but reflects
common local designation of a structure, a group of buildings or a
place that helps recipients locate the place. For example, an
industrial park may have a widely-recognized name that is more
readily found than a single street address. Some places, such as
parks, may not have street names or house numbers and SHOULD be
identified by a LMK string. In addition, this component can be
used to indicate where postal delivery locations differ from the
jurisdictional one.
LOC: LOC ("location", CAtype 22) is an unstructured string specifying
additional information about the location, such as the part of a
building.
PCN: The postal community name (CAtype 30) and the post office box
(CAtype 31) allow the recipient to construct a postal address.
The post office box field should contain the words "P.O. Box" or
other locally appropriate postal designation.
NAM: The NAM object is used to aid user location ("Joe Miller"
"Alice's Dry Cleaning"). It does not identify the person using a
communications device, but rather the person or organization
associated with the address.
LMK: While a landmark (LMK, CAtype 21) can indicate a complex of
buildings, 'building' (CAtype 25) conveys the name of a single
building if the street address includes more than one building or
the building name is helpful in identifying the location. (For
example, on university campuses, the house number is often not
displayed on buildings, while the building name is prominently
shown.)
Unit: The 'unit' object (CAtype 26) contains the name or number of a
part of a structure where there are separate administrative units,
owners or tenants, such as separate companies or families who
occupy that structure. Common examples include suite or apartment
designations.
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
Room: A 'room' (CAtype 28) is the smallest identifiable subdivision
of a structure.
The "type of place" item (CAtype 29) describes the type of place
described by the civic coordinates. For example, it describes
whether it is a home, office, street or other public space. The
values are drawn from the items in the rich presence [17]
document. This information makes it easy, for example, for the
DHCP client to then populate the presence information. Since this
is an IANA-registered token, the language and script designations
do not apply for this element.
The "additional code" item (CAtype 32) provides an additional,
country-specific code identifying the location. For example, for
Japan, it contains the Japan Industry Standard (JIS) address code.
The JIS address code provides a unique address inside of Japan,
down to the level of indicating the floor of the building.
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
4. Postal Addresses
In general, a recipient can construct a postal address by using all
language-appropriate elements, including the postal code (ZIP, CAtype
24). However, certain elements override the civic address components
to create a postal address. If the elments include a post office box
(CAtype 31), the street address components (A6, PRD, POD, STS, HNO,
HNS) are replaced with the post office box element. If a postal
community name is specified, the civic community name (typically, A3)
is replaced by the postal community name (PCN, CAtype 30). Country-
specific knowledge is required to create a valid postal address. The
formating of such addresses is beyond the scope of this document.
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
5. Example
Rather than showing the precise byte layout of a DHCP option, we show
a symbolic example below, representing the civic address of the
Munich city hall in Bavaria, Germany. The city and state name are
also conveyed in English and Italian in addition to German; the other
items are assumed to be common across all languages. All languages
use the latin script.
+--------+---------------+
| CAtype | CAvalue |
+--------+---------------+
| 0 | de |
| | |
| 128 | Latn |
| | |
| 1 | Bayern |
| | |
| 2 | Oberbayern |
| | |
| 3 | M=U+00FCnchen |
| | |
| 6 | Marienplatz |
| | |
| 19 | 8 |
| | |
| 21 | Rathaus |
| | |
| 24 | 80331 |
| | |
| 25 | public |
| | |
| 31 | Postfach 1000 |
| | |
| 0 | en |
| | |
| 1 | Bavaria |
| | |
| 3 | Munich |
| | |
| 0 | it |
| | |
| 1 | Baviera |
| | |
| 3 | Monaco |
+--------+---------------+
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
6. Security Considerations
Where critical decisions might be based on the value of this
GEOCONF_CIVIC option, DHCPv4 authentication in RFC3118 [4] SHOULD be
used to protect the integrity of the DHCP options.
Since there is no privacy protection for DHCP messages, an
eavesdropper who can monitor the link between the DHCP server and
requesting client can discover the information contained in this
option. Thus, usage of this option on networks without access
restrictions or network-layer or link-layer privacy mechanisms is NOT
RECOMMENDED.
To minimize the unintended exposure of location information, the
GEOCONF_CIVIC option SHOULD be returned by DHCPv4 servers only when
the DHCPv4 client has included this option in its 'parameter request
list' (RFC 2131 [2], Section 3.5). Similarly, the
OPTION_GEOCONF_CIVIC option SHOULD be returned by DHCPv6 servers only
when the DHCPv6 client has included this option in its OPTION_ORO.
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
7. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA register a new DHCPv4 and DHCPv6
option code for the Civic Address (GEOCONF_CIVIC and
OPTION_GEOCONF_CIVIC, respectively).
This document establishes a new IANA registry for CAtypes designating
civic address components. According to RFC 2434 [12], this registry
operates under the "Specification Required" rules. The IANA
registration needs to include the following information:
CAtype: Numeric identifier, assigned by IANA.
Brief description: Short description identifying the meaning of the
element.
Reference to published specification: A stable reference to an RFC or
other permanent and readily available reference, in sufficient
detail so that interoperability between independent
implementations is possible.
Country-specific considerations: If applicable, notes whether the
element is only applicable or defined for certain countries.
Updates to country-specific considerations for previously-defined
CAtypes follow the same procedure. Such documents may provide the
interpretation of elements A1 through A6 for additional countries.
Approval by a Designated Expert is required.
The initial list of registrations is contained in .
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
8. References
8.1 Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131,
March 1997.
[3] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages",
BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.
[4] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP Messages",
RFC 3118, June 2001.
[5] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M.
Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[6] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646",
STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[7] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages",
BCP 47, RFC 3066, January 2001.
[8] Lemon, T. and S. Cheshire, "Encoding Long Options in the
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)", RFC 3396,
November 2002.
[9] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
January 2004.
[10] Sugano, H. and S. Fujimoto, "Presence Information Data Format
(PIDF)", draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-08 (work in progress),
May 2003.
[11] International Organization for Standardization, ISO.,
"Information and documentation - Codes for the representation
of names of scripts", February 2004.
8.2 Informative References
[12] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[13] Polk, J., Schnizlein, J., and M. Linsner, "Dynamic Host
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based Location
Configuration Information", RFC 3825, July 2004.
[14] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
Format", draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-03 (work in progress),
September 2004.
[15] United States Postal Service, "Postal Addressing Standards",
November 2000.
[16] National Emergency Number Assocation, "NENA Recommended Formats
and Protocols For ALI Data Exchange, ALI Response and GIS
Mapping", NENA NENA-02-010, January 2002.
[17] Schulzrinne, H., "RPID: Rich Presence: Extensions to the
Presence Information Data Format (PIDF)",
draft-ietf-simple-rpid-05 (work in progress), February 2005.
Author's Address
Henning Schulzrinne
Columbia University
Department of Computer Science
450 Computer Science Building
New York, NY 10027
US
Phone: +1 212 939 7004
Email: hgs+geopriv@cs.columbia.edu
URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
Harald Alvestrand, Stefan Berger, Peter Blatherwick, Joel M. Halpern,
Rohan Mahy and James Polk provided helpful comments.
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic May 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Schulzrinne Expires December 1, 2005 [Page 21]