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

From: "Abbott, Nadine B." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:52:08 -0500

There is a clear and immediate need to be able to differentiate the postal
community from the civic community, at least in meeting the needs of North
American emergency services.

The first proposal appears to meet the immediate identified need. 
However, I have no objection to using either of the other two approaches, if
that is the consensus of the group.

Nadine Abbott 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Andrew Newton
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 2:54 PM
To: GEOPRIV WG
Subject: [Geopriv] call for consensus on postal address issue for dhcp-civil

All,

Our AD notes that the matter of the type of postal address for 
draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil, received during IETF-wide last call, is 
a substantive technical change and has requested a consensus opinion 
regarding the matter from this working group.

There appear to be no objections to making a distinction between legal 
and postal addresses, but there isn't a clear consensus on how to 
approach the problem (if I have overlooked an overall objection for 
this distinction, please say so).  Henning sent out a list of 3 
possible approaches.  I've quoted #1 and #3 (nobody seemed to want #2).

#####

(1) Assume that only the community name differs between jurisdictional 
and postal addresses (and deal with odd street situations by LMK 
indication) and add a postal community name. Given that the emergency 
services community has found this sufficient in four versions of 
systems designed since the 1970s, there is some indication that this is 
"good enough".

(3) Add an enclosing label that groups all postal or jurisdictional 
fields, as in

[postal A1, A2, ...}
[jurisdictional A1, A2, ...}

where the [postal ...] indication would be a TLV that indicates the 
total length of all subtended TLVs.

#####

Which do you prefer, #1 or #3?  Please respond no later than Feb. 8 
(two weeks from today).

-andy

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

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