Subject: Re: [Geopriv] call for consensus on postal address issue for dhcp-civil

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 10:54:00 -0500

Given the total lack of discussion on this topic, is it reasonable to 
conclude that no changes are needed?  Is this also true for the 
common-policy draft?

-andy

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 11:54:30 -0500

I believe we must do something.

Can we agree on adding a CAType for Postal Community Name as the minimal
change needed to address the problem, with some notes on using LMK for other
oddities?  This is Henning's solution (1).

(2) and (3) address possible problems that we don't know we have.  We
definitely have the postal community name problem.  Despite Ted's example, I
believe that the Postal, Emergency, and local (property) Jurisdictional
authorities will, if a problem is brought to their attention, resolve it to
a single address EXCEPT the difference between the actual and postal
community names.

Without consensus, we will be left with a non-working solution.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Andrew Newton
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:54 AM
> To: GEOPRIV WG
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] call for consensus on postal address issue fordhcp-
> civil
>