GEOPRIV WG M. Thomson
Internet-Draft J. Winterbottom
Updates: 4119 (if approved) Andrew
Intended status: Standards Track February 15, 2007
Expires: August 19, 2007
Revised Civic Location Format for PIDF-LO
draft-ietf-geopriv-revised-civic-lo-05.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 19, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 19, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Revised Civic LO February 2007
Abstract
This document defines an XML format for the representation of civic
location. This format is designed for use with PIDF Location Object
(PIDF-LO) documents. The format is based on the civic address
definition in PIDF-LO, but adds several new elements based on the
civic types defined for DHCP, and adds a hierarchy to address complex
road identity schemes. The format also includes support for the
xml:lang language tag and restricts the types of elements where
appropriate.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Changes from PIDF-LO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Additional Civic Address Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. New Thoroughfare Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Street Numbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. Directionals and other Qualifiers . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Country Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. A1 Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Languages and Scripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5.1. Converting from the DHCP Format . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5.2. Combining Multiple Elements Based on Language
Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6. Whitespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Civic Address Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. URN sub-namespace registration for
'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr' . . . . 14
7.2. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3. CAtype Registry Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 19, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Revised Civic LO February 2007
1. Introduction
Since the publication of the original PIDF-LO civic specification, in
[RFC4119], it has been found that the specification is lacking a
number of additional parameters that can be used to more precisely
specify a civic location. These additional parameters have been
largely captured in [RFC4776].
This document revises the GEOPRIV civic form to include the
additional civic parameters captured in [RFC4776]. The document also
introduces a hierarchical structure for thoroughfare (road)
identification which is employed in some countries. New elements are
defined to allow for even more precision in specifying a civic
location.
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 19, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Revised Civic LO February 2007
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
The term "thoroughfare" is used in this document to describe a road
or part of a road or other access route along which a final point is
identified. This is consistent with the definition used in
[UPU-S42].
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 19, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Revised Civic LO February 2007
3. Changes from PIDF-LO
3.1. Additional Civic Address Types
[RFC4776] provides a full set of parameters that may be used to
describe a civic location. Specifically [RFC4776] lists several
civic address types (CAtypes) that require support in the formal
PIDF-LO definition that are not in [RFC4119].
These changes include and new elements that are required to support
more complex structures for naming street addresses, this is
described in more detail in Section 3.2.
+---------------+--------+----------------------------+-------------+
| New Civic | CAtype | Description | Example |
| Field | | | |
+---------------+--------+----------------------------+-------------+
| BLD | 25 | Building (structure) | Hope |
| | | | Theatre |
| | | | |
| UNIT | 26 | Unit (apartment, suite) | 12a |
| | | | |
| ROOM | 28 | Room | 450F |
| | | | |
| PLC | 29 | Place-type | office |
| | | | |
| PCN | 30 | Postal community name | Leonia |
| | | | |
| POBOX | 31 | Post office box (P.O. box) | U40 |
| | | | |
| ADDCODE | 32 | Additional Code | 13203000003 |
| | | | |
| SEAT | 33 | Seat (desk, cubicle, | WS 181 |
| | | workstation) | |
| | | | |
| RD | 34 | Primary road or street | Broadway |
| | | | |
| RDSEC | 35 | Road section | 14 |
| | | | |
| RDBR | 36 | Road branch | Lane 7 |
| | | | |
| RDSUBBR | 37 | Road sub-branch | Alley 8 |
| | | | |
| PRM | 38 | Road pre-modifier | Old |
| | | | |
| POM | 39 | Road post-modifier | Extended |
+---------------+--------+----------------------------+-------------+
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 19, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Revised Civic LO February 2007
Table 1: New Civic PIDF-LO Types
A complete description of these types is included in [RFC4776].
3.2. New Thoroughfare Elements
In some countries a thoroughfare can be broken up into sections, and
it is not uncommon for street numbers to be repeated between
sections. A road section identifier is required to ensure that an
address is unique. For example, "West Alice Parade" has 5 sections,
each numbered from 1; unless the section is specified "7 West Alice
Parade" could exist in 5 different places. The "RDSEC" element is
used to specify the section.
Minor streets can share the same name, so that they can only be
distinguished by the major thoroughfare with which they intersect.
For example, both "West Alice Parade, Section 3" and "Bob Street"
could both be interested by a "Carol Lane". The "RDBR" element is
used to specify a road branch where the name of the branch does not
uniquely identify the road. Road branches MAY also be used where a
major thoroughfare is split into sections.
Similar to the way that a road branch is associated with a road, a
road sub-branch is associated with a road branch. The "RDSUBBR"
element is used to identify road sub-branches.
The "A6" element is retained for use in those countries that require
this level of detail. Where "A6" was previously used for street
names in [RFC4119], it MUST NOT be used, the "RD" element MUST be
used for thoroughfare data. However, without additional information
these fields MUST not be interchanged when converting between
different civic formats. Where civic address information is obtained
from another format, such as the DHCP form [RFC4776], the "A6"
element MUST be copied directly from the source format.
The following example figure shows a fictional arrangement of roads
where these new thoroughfare elements are applicable.
| ||
| ---------------||
| Carol La. Carol La. || Bob
| || St.
| West Alice Pde. ||
==========/=================/===============/==========||===========
Sec.1 Sec.2 Sec.3 | Sec.4 || Sec.5
| ||
----------| Carol ||
Alley 2 | La. ||
Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 19, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Revised Civic LO February 2007
| ||
3.2.1. Street Numbering
The introduction of new thoroughfare elements affects the
interpretation of several of more specific civic address data. In
particular, street numbering (the "HNO" element) applies to the most
specific road element specified. That is, the first specified
element from: "RDSUBBR", "RDBR", "RDSEC", or "RD".
3.2.2. Directionals and other Qualifiers
The "PRM", "POM", "PRD", "POD" and "STS" elements always apply to the
value of the "RD" element only. If road branches or sub-branches
require street suffixes or qualifiers, they MUST be included in the
"RDBR" or "RDSUBBR" element text.
3.3. Country Element
The "country" element differs from that defined in [RFC4119] in that
it now restricts the value space of the element to two upper case
characters, which correspond to the alpha-2 codes in [ISO.3166-1].
3.4. A1 Element
The "A1" element is used for the top level subdivision within a
country. In the absence of a country-specific guide on how to use
the A-series of elements, the second part of the ISO 3166-2 code
[ISO.3166-2] for a country subdivision SHOULD be used. The ISO
3166-2 code is a formed of a country code and hyphen plus a code of
one, two or three characters or numerals. For the "A1" element, the
leading country code and hyphen are omitted and only the subdivision
code is included.
For example, the codes for Canada include CA-BC, CA-ON, CA-QC;
Luxembourg has just three single character codes: LU-D, LU-G and
LU-L; Australia uses both two and three character codes: AU-ACT, AU-
NSW, AU-NT; France uses numerical codes for mainland France and
letters for territories: FR-75, FR-NC. This results in the following
fragments:
See RFCXXXX.
END 7.2. XML Schema Registration This section registers an XML schema as per the procedures in [RFC3688]. URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr Registrant Contact: IETF, GEOPRIV working group, (geopriv@ietf.org), Martin Thomson (martin.thomson@andrew.com). The XML for this schema can be found as the entirety of Section 4 of this document. Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 19, 2007 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Revised Civic LO February 2007 7.3. CAtype Registry Update This document updates the civic address type registry established by [RFC4776]. The "PIDF" column of the CAtypes table has been updated to include the types shown in the first column of Table 1. Thomson & Winterbottom Expires August 19, 2007 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Revised Civic LO February 2007 8. References 8.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [W3C.REC-xmlschema-2-20041028] Biron, P. and A. Malhotra, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xmlschema-2-20041028, October 2004,