Subject: [Geopriv] review of draft-google-self-published-geofeeds

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:20:11 -0500

Alissa, et al,

I have reviewed the geofeeds document. Here's my feedback (which has
already been given to the document authors):

1) Section 3.2 is about using the RIR Whois system as a bootstrap for
finding the CSV file. It might be useful to mention that the IETF
WEIRDS
working group is in the process of specifying RDAP, a replacement for
Whois. Section 5.2 of draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-06 discusses the
linking system for RDAP, which simply re-uses the RFC 5988 IANA
registry. Therefore it would be useful for RDAP and other protocols if
there is an RFC 5988 link relationship registered for geofeeds.

2) Similar to the above, registration of a media type would be useful
for referencing the geofeeds. Something along the lines of
application/geofeed+csv.

3) We might want to consider offering the ability for specifying sets
of postal codes for situations where a single postal code might be too
specific for certain contexts. This might address some privacy
concerns, and may offer the ability to reduce redundant lines in the
CSV file (e.g. Where a network prefix can be found in 2 zip codes).

-andy

---

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:25:23 +0000

FYI I suggested in the meeting that they consider adopting A1-A4 from PIDF, unmodified, to solve this problem.  I don’t think postal codes are the right way to do it.

Brian

On Nov 14, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Andrew Newton <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: James Polk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:34:35 -0600

don't forget <country></country>

At 12:25 PM 11/14/2013, Rosen, Brian wrote:
>FYI I suggested in the meeting that they consider adopting A1-A4 
>from PIDF, unmodified, to solve this problem.  I don't think postal 
>codes are the right way to do it.
>
>Brian
>
>

---

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:39:21 +0000

Yeah, they have that.  They also have ³state² = A1 and A3 (city).  They
don¹t have A2 (county) and A4 (what we would call unincorporated parts of
a county, or division of a city).

Their country is the same as ours (ISO 2 digit code).  If they adopt A1-A4
from PIDF as well, they should be able to get what they want.

Brian

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:41:28 -0800

> from PIDF as well, they should be able to get what they want.

A1 is also the same.