Revised Civic Location Format for Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)
RFC 5139
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(February 2008; No errata)
Updates RFC 4119
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Stream | IETF | ||
| Formats | plain text pdf html bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 5139 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Cullen Jennings | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Network Working Group M. Thomson
Request for Comments: 5139 J. Winterbottom
Updates: 4119 Andrew
Category: Standards Track February 2008
Revised Civic Location Format for
Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)
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.
Abstract
This document defines an XML format for the representation of civic
location. This format is designed for use with Presence Information
Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) documents and replaces the
civic location format in RFC 4119. The format is based on the civic
address definition in PIDF-LO, but adds several new elements based on
the civic types defined for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP), and adds a hierarchy to address complex road identity
schemes. The format also includes support for the xml:lang language
tag and restricts the types of elements where appropriate.
Thomson & Winterbottom Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5139 Revised Civic LO February 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Changes from PIDF-LO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Additional Civic Address Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. New Thoroughfare Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.1. Street Numbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Directionals and Other Qualifiers . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Country Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. A1 Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. Languages and Scripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5.1. Converting from the DHCP Format . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5.2. Combining Multiple Elements Based on Language
Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6. Whitespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Civic Address Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. URN sub-namespace registration for
'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr' . . . . 10
7.2. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.3. CAtype Registry Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Thomson & Winterbottom Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5139 Revised Civic LO February 2008
1. Introduction
Since the publication of the original PIDF-LO civic specification, in
[RFC4119], it has been found that the specification is lacking a
number of additional parameters that can be used to more precisely
specify a civic location. These additional parameters have been
largely captured in [RFC4776].
This document revises the GEOPRIV civic form to include the
additional civic parameters captured in [RFC4776]. The document also
introduces a hierarchical structure for thoroughfare (road)
identification, which is employed in some countries. New elements
are defined to allow for even more precision in specifying a civic
location.
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 [RFC2119].
The term "thoroughfare" is used in this document to describe a road
or part of a road or other access route along which a final point is
Show full document text