Location Types Registry
RFC 4589
|
| Document |
Type |
|
RFC - Proposed Standard
(July 2006; No errata)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2013-03-02
|
|
Stream |
|
IETF
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
pdf
html
bibtex
|
| Stream |
WG state
|
|
(None)
|
|
Document shepherd |
|
No shepherd assigned
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
RFC 4589 (Proposed Standard)
|
|
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
Show full document text