[Geopriv] Re: Comments on the Civil-02 ID (on CA Types)

From: Henning Schulzrinne ^lt;hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Sat Jul 10 2004 - 22:13:11 EDT

James M. Polk wrote:

> In reviewing the pidf-lo-02 and the civil-02 IDs, I have discovered
> minor inconsistencies.

Thanks for raising these issues. See also my related LC comments.

>
> Specifically with the unnamed or labeled chart (which should be, BTW) on
> page 9 and 10 of civil-02 -- it is less complete than the chart in
> pidf-lo-02 ID recently submitted by Jon Peterson that's in IETF LC.
>
> pidf-lo-02 references "PC" for 'Postal Code' and "FLR" for 'Floor' in
> that ID's chart (on its page 6 and 7, that is also not labeled, which it
> should be for outside referencing to it).

Please note that the labels in the column 'NENA' refer to the NENA
02-010 data element labels. Neither FLR or PC are used there, as far as
I can tell. FLR is not defined there at all and PC is called ZIP. I've
added a separate column to the civil-02 table, labeled PIDF, to make the
correspondence explicit.

>
> I believe the two charts should be consistent to each other, with the
> civil-02 ID being the one that's less complete, it should have the
> appropriate text added.

They definitely should be. A separate, but related issue, is whether the
language information contained in the civil-02 draft should also appear
in PIDF-LO.

>
> cheers,
> James
>
> *******************
> Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Sat, 10 Jul 2004 22:13:11 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 10 2004 - 22:24:33 EDT