Subject: [Geopriv] calling for solution #1

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:16:43 -0500

After having read all the response regarding what to do about postal 
addresses for dhcp civic, it would seem that there is no one method 
that is the clear way forward technically, yet there are many people in 
favor of the simplest method: Henning's proposal #1.  That is:

> 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".

So I have to ask, is there anybody who vehemently objects to this way 
forward or finds this solution to be so detrimental as it will prevent 
us from revisiting this problem later (if necessary)?  If so, could you 
please provide an explanation?

-andy

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:28:00 -0500

I do not object if it allows moving forward in a timely way... 
-- Peter

Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
10.02.05 17:16

        To:     "'GEOPRIV WG'" <[email-masked]>
        cc: 
        Subject:        [Geopriv] calling for solution #1

-andy