Subject: [Geopriv] Interaction of new civic elements with geopriv-policy

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 08:09:20 +0800

To the authors of drafts that introduce new civic address elements,

New civic elements are going to be a problem for those who implement geopriv-policy.

It would seem logical that the new -prefix elements fall within the "building" tag for <provide-civic> [1].  On the other hand, geopriv-policy is quite prescriptive about the fields that are included.

Worse yet, "full" would seem to be equally prescriptive of what fields are included.  A strict reading would not allow a server to provide extension fields, regardless of the value of <provide-civic>.

My conclusion is that <provide-civic> needs better support for extensions.  I'm interested to hear what others in the WG think.

--Martin

[1] <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-policy-21#section-6.5.1>