Specifying Civic Address Extensions in PIDF-LO
draft-winterbottom-geopriv-local-civic-04
Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | James Winterbottom , Martin Thomson , Richard Barnes | ||
Last updated | 2010-12-16 | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
New fields are occasionally added to civic addresses. A backwardly- compatible mechanism for adding civic address elements to the Geopriv civic address format is described. A formal mechanism for handling unsupported extensions when translating between XML and DHCP civic address forms is defined for entities that need to perform this translation.
Authors
James Winterbottom
Martin Thomson
Richard Barnes
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)