Subject: [Geopriv] Question about status of Civic location information in PIDF-LO

From: "Abbott, Nadine B." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:31:30 -0500

This may have been discussed/resolved in Minneapolis, but I was not able to
attend, so I apologize in advance if I am traversing ground already covered.

The definition of the civil (a.k.a. civic) location information provided in
the DHCP download of location information to the UA, described in I-D
draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-05.txt, includes explicit tags for several
elements that are not included in the I-D (soon to be RFC) for PIDF-LO. 
Specifically, tagged fields for Building, Unit, Room, Placetype are missing
from the latest draft I have.

Are there plans to fold these into the definition of the Civic location
information in PIDF-LO in the RFC? In the next version of the PIDF-LO?

Thanks,
Nadine Abbott

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

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:23:38 -0500

> information in PIDF-LO in the RFC? In the next version of the PIDF-LO?

That hasn't been decided. ( Actually, the next steps for GEOPRIV 
haven't been decided. )
However, this sounds like a reasonable idea to me.

With regards to the next steps of GEOPRIV, I stated in the meeting that 
I felt it was inappropriate at this time for the working group to 
recharter under a much more narrowly focused scope for the purpose of 
maintenance on PIDF-LO given the recent slate of drafts and requests 
for new work.  Or in other words, keep the existing charter with its 
broad scope and add to our milestones.  Of course, this is just my 
opinion.  The working group gets to decide.

With respect to some of the issues that came out of the Minneapolis 
meeting, it may be necessary to call an interim meeting to discuss the 
roles and properties of network elements (both IP and sub-IP) in the 
propagation of location information up the stack to applications such 
as PIDF-LO (how's that for a problem statement?).  When and where have 
not been decided, but I encourage all the participants intending to 
submit drafts on the problem to do so sooner rather than later.

-andy