One document matched: draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-05.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-04.txt
GEOPRIV H. Schulzrinne
Internet-Draft Columbia U.
Expires: August 19, 2004 February 19, 2004
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for
Civic Addresses Configuration Information
draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-05
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of section 3 of RFC 3667. 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 become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
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, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
This document specifies a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4
and DHCPv6) option for the civic location of the client or the DHCP
server. The Location Configuration Information (LCI) includes
information about the country, administrative units such as states,
provinces and cities, as well as street addresses and building
information.
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Format of the DHCP Civic Location Option . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1 Overall Format for DHCPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 Overall Format for DHCPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3 Element Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4 Civic Address Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Postal Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 20
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
1. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUSTNOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALLNOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULDNOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1] and
indicate requirement levels for compliant implementations.
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
2. Introduction
Many end system services can benefit by knowing the approximate
location of the end device. In particular, IP telephony devices need
to know their location to contact the appropriate emergency response
agency and to be found by emergency responders.
There are two common ways to identify the location of an object,
either through geospatial coordinates or by so-called civic address.
Geospatial coordinates indicate longitude, latitude and altitude,
while civic addresses indicate a street address.
The civic address is commonly, but not necessearily, closely related
to the postal address, used by the local postal service to deliver
mail. However, not all postal addresses correspond to street
addresses. For example, the author's address is a postal address
that does not appear on any street or building sign. Naturally, post
office boxes would be unsuitable for the purposes described here.
The term 'civil address' or 'jurisdictional address' is also
sometimes used instead of civic address.
A related document [13] describes a DHCPv4 [2] option for conveying
geospatial information to a device. This draft describes how DHCPv4
and DHCPv6 [5] can be used to convey the civic and postal address to
devices. Both can be used simultaneously, increasing the chance to
deliver accurate and timely location information to emergency
responders.
End systems that obtain location information via the mechanism
described here then use other protocol mechanisms to communicate this
information to the emergency call center or to convey it as part of
presence information.
Civic information is useful since it often provides additional,
human-usable information particularly within buildings. Also,
compared to geospatial information, it is readily obtained for most
occupied structures and can often be interpreted even if incomplete.
For example, for many large university or corporate campuses,
geocoding information to building and room granularity may not be
readily available.
Unlike geospatial information, the format for civic and postal
information differs from country to country. Thus, this draft
establishes an IANA registry for civic location data fields. The
initial set of data fields is derived from standards published by the
United States National Emergency Number Association (NENA) [16]. It
is anticipated that other countries can reuse many of the data
elements.
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
The same civic and postal address information can often be rendered
in multiple languages and scripts. For example, Korean addresses are
often shown in Hangul, Latin and Kanji, while some older cities have
multiple language variants (Munich, Muenchen and Monaco, for
example). Since DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 do not currently support a
mechanism to query for a specific script or language, the DHCP server
SHOULD provide all common renderings to the client and MUST provide
at least the rendering in the language and script appropriate to the
location indicated. For example, for use in presence information,
the target may be visiting from a foreign country and want to convey
the information in a format suitable for watchers in its home
country. For emergency services, the rendering in the local language
is likely to be most appropriate. To provide multiple renderings,
the server repeats sequences of address elements, prefixing each with
'language' and/or 'script' element (see Section 3.3). The language
and script remain in effect for subsequent elements until overridden
by another language or script element.
The DHCP server MAY provide location information for multiple
locations related to the target, for example, both the network
element and the network jack itself. This is likely to help in
debugging network problems, for example.
As discussed in Security Considerations (Section 6), the
GEOCONF_CIVIC option SHOULD be returned by DHCPv4 servers only when
the DHCPv4 client has included this option in its 'parameter request
list' (RFC 2131 [2], Section 3.5). Similarly, the
OPTION_GEOCONF_CIVIC option SHOULD be returned by DHCPv6 servers only
when the DHCPv6 client has included this option in its OPTION_ORO.
The DHCPv4 long-options mechanism described in RFC 3396 [8] MUST be
used if the civic address option exceeds the maximum DHCPv4 option
size of 255 octets.
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
3. Format of the DHCP Civic Location Option
3.1 Overall Format for DHCPv4
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| GEOCONF_CIVIC | N | what | country |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| code | civic address elements ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Code GEOCONF_CIVIC: The code for this DHCP option is TBD by IANA.
N: The length of this option is variable. The minimum length is 3.
what: The 'what' element describes which location the DHCP entry
refers to. Currently, three options are defined: the location of
the DHCP server (a value of 0), the location of the network
element believed to be closest to the client (a value of 1) or the
location of the client (a value of 2). Option (2) SHOULD be used,
but may not be known. Options (0) and (1) SHOULD NOT be used
unless it is known that the DHCP client is in close physical
proximity to the server or network element.
country code: The two-letter ISO 3166 country code in capital ASCII
letters, e.g., DE or US. (Civic addresses always contain country
designations, suggesting the use of a fixed-format field to save
space.)
civic address elements: Zero or more elements comprising the civic
and/or postal address, with the format described below (Section
3.3).
3.2 Overall Format for DHCPv6
The DHCPv6 [5] civic address option refers generally to the client as
a whole.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_GEOCONF_CIVIC | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| what | country code | .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ .
. civic address elements .
. ... .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
option-code: OPTION_GEOCONF_CIVIC (TBD)
option-len: Length of the Countrycode, 'what' and civic address
elements.
what: See above (Section 3.1).
country code: See above (Section 3.1).
civic address elements: See above (Section 3.1).
3.3 Element Format
For both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6, each civic address element has the
following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CAtype | CAlength | CAvalue ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
CAtype: A one-octet descriptor of the data civic address value.
CAlength: The length, in octets, of the CAvalue, not including the
CAlength field itself.
CAvalue: The civic address value, as described in detail below.
3.4 Civic Address Components
Since each country has different administrative hierarchies, with
often the same (English) names, this specification adopts a simple
hierarchical notation that is then instantiated for each country. We
assume that five levels are sufficient for sub-national divisions
above the street level.
All elements are OPTIONAL and can appear in any order.
Component values MUST be encoded as UTF-8 [6]. They SHOULD be
written in mixed case, following the customary spelling. The script
indication (CAtype=128) MUST be written in mixed-case, with the first
letter a capital letter.
Abbreviations MUST NOT be used unless indicated for each element.
Abbreviations do not need a trailing period.
It is RECOMMENDED that all elements in a particular script (CAtype
128) and language (CAtype 0) be grouped together as that reduces the
number of script and language identifiers needed.
For each script and language, elements SHOULD be included in numeric
order from lowest to highest of their CAtype. In general, an element
is labeled in its language and script by the most recent 'language
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
tag' (CAtype = 0) element preceding it. Since not all elements
depend on the script and language, a client accumulates the elements
by CAtype and then selects the most desirable language and script
rendition if there are multiple elements for the same CAtype.
+----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
| CAtype | label | description |
+----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
| 1 | A1 | national |
| | | subdivisions |
| | | (state, region, |
| | | province, |
| | | prefecture) |
| | | |
| 2 | A2 | county, parish, gun |
| | | (JP), district (IN) |
| | | |
| 3 | A3 | city, township, shi |
| | | (JP) |
| | | |
| 4 | A4 | city division, |
| | | borough, city |
| | | district, ward, |
| | | chou (JP) |
| | | |
| 5 | A5 | neighborhood, block |
| | | |
| 6 | A6 | street |
+----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
Table 1
For specific countries, the administrative sub-divisions are
described below.
CA (Canada): The mapping to NENA designations is shown in
parentheses. A1=province (STA); A2=county (CNA); A3=city or town
(MCN); A6=street (STN).
DE (Germany): A1=state (Bundesstaat); A2=county (Regierungsbezirk);
A3=city (Stadt, Gemeinde); A4=district (Bezirk); A6=street
(Strasse). Street suffixes (STS) are used only for designations
that are a separate word (e.g., Marienthaler Strasse).
JP (Japan): A1=metropolis (To, Fu) or prefecture (Ken, Do); A2=city
(Shi) or rural area (Gun); A3=ward (Ku) or village (Mura); A4=town
(Chou or Machi); A5=city district (Choume); A6=block (Banchi or
Ban).
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
KR (Korea): A1=province (Do); A2=county (gun); A3=city or village
(ri); A4=urban district (gu); A5=neighborhood (dong); A6=street
(no, ro, ga or gil).
US (United States): The mapping to NENA designations is shown in
parentheses. A1=state (STA), using the the two-letter state and
possession abbreviations recommended by the United States Postal
Service Publication 28 [15], Appendix B; A2=county (CNA); A3=civic
community name (city or town) (MCN); A6=street (STN). A4 and A5
are not used. The civic community name (MCN) reflects the
political boundaries. These may differ from postal delivery
assignments for historical or practical reasons.
Additional CA types appear in many countries and are simply omitted
where they are not needed or known:
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| CAtype | NENA | PIDF | Description | Examples |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 0 | | | language | i-default |
| | | | | [3] |
| | | | | |
| 16 | PRD | PRD | leading | N |
| | | | street | |
| | | | direction | |
| | | | | |
| 17 | POD | POD | trailing | SW |
| | | | street | |
| | | | suffix | |
| | | | | |
| 18 | STS | STS | street | Ave, Platz |
| | | | suffix | |
| | | | | |
| 19 | HNO | HNO | house | 123 |
| | | | number | |
| | | | | |
| 20 | HNS | HNS | house | A, 1/2 |
| | | | number | |
| | | | suffix | |
| | | | | |
| 21 | LMK | LMK | landmark or | Columbia |
| | | | vanity | University |
| | | | address | |
| | | | | |
| 22 | LOC | LOC | additional | South Wing |
| | | | location | |
| | | | information | |
| | | | | |
| 23 | NAM | NAM | name | Joe'S |
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
| | | | (residence | Barbershop |
| | | | and office | |
| | | | occupant) | |
| | | | | |
| 24 | ZIP | PC | postal/zip | 10027-1234 |
| | | | code | |
| | | | | |
| 25 | | | building | Low Library |
| | | | (structure) | |
| | | | | |
| 26 | | | unit | Apt 42 |
| | | | (apartment, | |
| | | | suite) | |
| | | | | |
| 27 | | FLR | floor | 4 |
| | | | | |
| 28 | | | room number | 450F |
| | | | | |
| 29 | | | placetype | office |
| | | | | |
| 30 | PCN | | postal | Leonia |
| | | | community | |
| | | | name | |
| | | | | |
| 31 | | | post office | 12345 |
| | | | box (P.O. | |
| | | | Box) | |
| | | | | |
| 128 | | | script | Latn |
| | | | | |
| 255 | | | reserved | |
+------------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
The CA types labeled in the second column correspond to items from
the NENA "Recommended Formats & Protocols For ALI Data Exchange, ALI
Response & GIS Mapping" [16], but are applicable to most countries.
The "NENA" column refers to the data dictionary name in Exhibit 18 of
[16].
The column labeled PIDF indicates the element name from [14].
The "language" item (CAtype 0) optionally identifies the language
used for presenting the address information, drawing from the tags
for identifying languages in [7]. If omitted, the default value for
this tag is "i-default" [3].
The "script" item (CAtype 128) optionally identifies the script used
for presenting the address information, drawing from the tags for
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
identifying scripts in ISO 15924 [11]. If omitted, the default value
for this tag is "Latn".
The abbreviations N, E, S, W, and NE, NW, SE, SW SHOULD be used for
POD and PRD in English-speaking countries.
STS designates a street suffix. In the United States (US), the
abbreviations recommended by the United States Postal Service
Publication 28 [15], Appendix C, SHOULD be used.
HNS ("house number") is a modifier to a street address; it does not
identify parts of a street address.
LMK ("landmark") is a string name for a location. It conveys the
same information as the street address, but reflects common local
designation of a structure, a group of buildings or a place that
helps recipients locate the place. For example, an industrial park
may have a widely-recognized name that is more readily found than a
single street address. Some places, such as parks, may not have
street names or house numbers and SHOULD be identified by a LMK
string. In addition, this component can be used to indicate where
postal delivery locations differ from the jurisdictional one.
LOC ("location") is an unstructured string.
The postal community name (CAtype 30) and the post office box (CAtype
31) allow the recipient to construct a postal address. The post
office box field should contain the words "P.O. Box" or other
locally appropriate postal designation.
The NAM object is used to aid user location ("Joe Miller" "Alice's
Dry Cleaning"). It does not identify the person using a
communications device, but rather the person or organization
associated with the address.
While a landmark (LMK) can indicate a complex of buildings,
'building' (CAtype 25) conveys the name of a single building if the
street address includes more than one building or the building name
is helpful in identifying the location. (For example, on university
campuses, the house number is often not displayed on buildings, while
the building name is prominently shown.)
The 'unit' object (CAtype 26) contains the name or number of a part
of a structure where there are separate administrative units, owners
or tenants, such as separate companies or families who occupy that
structure. Common examples include suite or apartment designations.
A 'room' is the smallest identifiable subdivision of a structure.
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
The "type of place" item (CAtype 29) describes the type of place
described by the civic coordinates. For example, it describes
whether it is a home, office, street or other public space. The
values are drawn from the items in the rich presence [17] document.
This information makes it easy, for example, for the DHCP client to
then populate the presence information. Since this is an
IANA-registered token, the language and script designations do not
apply for this element.
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
4. Postal Addresses
In general, a recipient can construct a postal address by using all
language-appropriate elements, including the postal code (ZIP, CAtype
24). However, certain elements override the civic address components
to create a postal address. If the elments include a post office box
(CAtype 31), the street address components (A6, PRD, POD, STS, HNO,
HNS) are replaced with the post office box element. If a postal
community name is specified, the civic community name (typically, A3)
is replaced by the postal community name (PCN, CAtype 30).
Country-specific knowledge is required to create a valid postal
address. The formating of such addresses is beyond the scope of this
document.
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
5. Example
Rather than showing the precise byte layout of a DHCP option, we show
a symbolic example below, representing the civic address of the
Munich city hall in Bavaria, Germany. The city and state name are
also conveyed in English and Italian in addition to German; the other
items are assumed to be common across all languages. All languages
use the latin script.
+--------+---------------+
| CAtype | CAvalue |
+--------+---------------+
| 0 | de |
| | |
| 128 | Latn |
| | |
| 1 | Bayern |
| | |
| 2 | Oberbayern |
| | |
| 3 | M=U+00FCnchen |
| | |
| 6 | Marienplatz |
| | |
| 19 | 8 |
| | |
| 21 | Rathaus |
| | |
| 24 | 80331 |
| | |
| 25 | public |
| | |
| 31 | Postfach 1000 |
| | |
| 0 | en |
| | |
| 1 | Bavaria |
| | |
| 3 | Munich |
| | |
| 0 | it |
| | |
| 1 | Baviera |
| | |
| 3 | Monaco |
+--------+---------------+
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
6. Security Considerations
Where critical decisions might be based on the value of this
GEOCONF_CIVIC option, DHCPv4 authentication in RFC3118 [4] SHOULD be
used to protect the integrity of the DHCP options.
Since there is no privacy protection for DHCP messages, an
eavesdropper who can monitor the link between the DHCP server and
requesting client can discover the information contained in this
option. Thus, usage of this option on networks without access
restrictions or network-layer or link-layer privacy mechanisms is NOT
RECOMMENDED.
To minimize the unintended exposure of location information, the
GEOCONF_CIVIC option SHOULD be returned by DHCPv4 servers only when
the DHCPv4 client has included this option in its 'parameter request
list' (RFC 2131 [2], Section 3.5). Similarly, the
OPTION_GEOCONF_CIVIC option SHOULD be returned by DHCPv6 servers only
when the DHCPv6 client has included this option in its OPTION_ORO.
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
7. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA register a new DHCPv4 and DHCPv6
option code for the Civic Address (GEOCONF_CIVIC and
OPTION_GEOCONF_CIVIC, respectively).
This document establishes a new IANA registry for CAtypes designating
civic address components. According to RFC 2434 [12], this registry
operates under the "Specification Required" rules. The IANA
registration needs to include the following information:
CAtype: Numeric identifier, assigned by IANA.
Brief description: Short description identifying the meaning of the
element.
Reference to published specification: A stable reference to an RFC or
other permanent and readily available reference, in sufficient
detail so that interoperability between independent
implementations is possible.
Country-specific considerations: If applicable, notes whether the
element is only applicable or defined for certain countries.
Updates to country-specific considerations for previously-defined
CAtypes follow the same procedure. Such documents may provide the
interpretation of elements A1 through A6 for additional countries.
Approval by a Designated Expert is required.
The initial list of registrations is contained in .
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
8. References
8.1 Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131,
March 1997.
[3] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages",
BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.
[4] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP Messages",
RFC 3118, June 2001.
[5] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C. and M.
Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[6] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD
63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[7] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages", BCP
47, RFC 3066, January 2001.
[8] Lemon, T. and S. Cheshire, "Encoding Long Options in the
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)", RFC 3396,
November 2002.
[9] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
January 2004.
[10] Sugano, H. and S. Fujimoto, "Presence Information Data Format
(PIDF)", draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-08 (work in progress), May
2003.
[11] International Organization for Standardization, ISO.,
"Information and documentation - Codes for the representation
of names of scripts", February 2004.
8.2 Informative References
[12] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October
1998.
[13] Polk, J., Schnizlein, J. and M. Linsner, "Dynamic Host
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
Configuration Protocol Option for Coordinate-based Location
Configuration Information", RFC 3825, July 2004.
[14] Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
Format", draft-ietf-geopriv-pidf-lo-03 (work in progress),
September 2004.
[15] United States Postal Service, "Postal Addressing Standards",
November 2000.
[16] National Emergency Number Assocation, "NENA Recommended Formats
and Protocols For ALI Data Exchange, ALI Response and GIS
Mapping", NENA NENA-02-010, January 2002.
[17] Schulzrinne, H., Gurbani, V., Kyzivat, P. and J. Rosenberg,
"RPID: Rich Presence: Extensions to the Presence Information
Data Format (PIDF)", draft-ietf-simple-rpid-04 (work in
progress), October 2004.
Author's Address
Henning Schulzrinne
Columbia University
Department of Computer Science
450 Computer Science Building
New York, NY 10027
US
Phone: +1 212 939 7004
EMail: hgs+geopriv@cs.columbia.edu
URI: http://www.cs.columbia.edu
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
Harald Alvestrand, Stefan Berger, Peter Blatherwick, Joel M.
Halpern, Rohan Mahy and James Polk provided helpful comments.
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft DHCP Civic February 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Schulzrinne Expires August 19, 2004 [Page 20]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 00:44:48 |