Revised Civic Location Format for Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)
RFC 5139

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 07

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
   identified.  This is consistent with the definition used in
   [UPU-S42].

3.  Changes from PIDF-LO

3.1.  Additional Civic Address Types

   [RFC4776] provides a full set of parameters that may be used to
   describe a civic location.  Specifically, [RFC4776] lists several
   civic address types (CAtypes) that require support in the formal