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
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Martin Thomson , James Winterbottom | ||
Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
Stream | IETF | ||
Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized 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 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 formalShow full document text