Location Types Registry
RFC 4589
Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (July 2006; No errata) | |
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Henning Schulzrinne , Hannes Tschofenig | ||
Last updated | 2013-03-02 | ||
Stream | IETF | ||
Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
Stream | WG state | (None) | |
Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
IESG | IESG state | RFC 4589 (Proposed Standard) | |
Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | |||
Responsible AD | Ted Hardie | ||
Send notices to | mankin@psg.com, rg+ietf@qualcomm.com, andy@hxr.us |
Network Working Group H. Schulzrinne Request for Comments: 4589 Columbia U. Category: Standards Track H. Tschofenig Siemens July 2006 Location Types Registry Status of This Memo This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Abstract This document creates a registry for describing the types of places a human or end system might be found. The registry is then referenced by other protocols that need a common set of location terms as protocol constants. Examples of location terms defined in this document include aircraft, office, and train station. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................2 2. Terminology .....................................................3 3. Location Types ..................................................3 4. Schema ..........................................................6 5. IANA Considerations .............................................7 5.1. Registering Tokens .........................................7 5.2. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:location-type .......................8 5.3. Schema Registration for Schema urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:location-type .......................9 6. Internationalization Considerations .............................9 7. Security Considerations .........................................9 8. Acknowledgements ................................................9 9. References .....................................................10 9.1. Normative References ......................................10 9.2. Informative References ....................................10 Schulzrinne & Tschofenig Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 4589 Location Types Registry July 2006 1. Introduction This document creates a registry for location type tokens. We anticipate that the network, through configuration or management protocols, tells a mobile device what kind of location it finds itself in. The device and associated software can then tailor its behavior to the environment. For example, this document defines the terms "classroom", "place-of-worship", and "theater". A considerate owner of a cell phone might program the device to switch from ringer to vibrate mode in such environments. Just knowing the geographic location, be it as civic (street address) or geospatial coordinates, would generally not allow the device to make a similar decision. Naturally, the number of descriptive terms for physical environments is almost unbounded. This registry tries to identify common terms that are likely to be useful for communications devices and for controlling and guiding communications behavior. The terms roughly correspond to the level of details of location descriptions and icons found on geographic maps, for example, and are meant to be in common use across a variety of cultures and countries. The registration process described in the IANA Considerations section allows this list to be extended as needed, while aiming to prevent an unnecessary explosion in the registry. The use of tokens (i.e., protocol constants) makes it easier to build systems across multiple languages. A user interface can readily translate a finite set of tokens to user-appropriate textual or iconic representations. Protocols using this registry are encouraged to provide additional mechanisms to accommodate location types not currently registered via free-text fields with appropriate language and character set labeling. The terms defined in this registry do not attempt to provide a hierarchy of location descriptions, except in certain special cases. For example, the term "restaurant" is defined to include the term "cafe", and the term "public" encompasses a range of descriptors, as noted below. The registry makes these more generic terms available as often the more detailed distinctions may not be available, or privacy concerns suggest the use of less precise terms that are still sufficient to guide communications behavior or evaluate the source of a phone call or message, say. In many cases, a location might be described by multiple terms that apply at the same time. For example, the combination of "restaurant"Show full document text