database logo graphic

RFC 6848

"Specifying Civic Address Extensions in the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)", January 2013

Canonical URL:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6848.txt
This document is also available in this non-normative format: PDF.
Status:
PROPOSED STANDARD
Updates:
RFC 4776, RFC 5222
Authors:
J. Winterbottom
M. Thomson
R. Barnes
B. Rosen
R. George
Stream:
IETF
Source:
geopriv (rai)

Cite this RFC: TXT  |  XML

Other actions: Find Errata (if any)  |  Submit Errata  |  Find IPR Disclosures from the IETF


Abstract

New fields are occasionally added to civic addresses. A backward- 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. Initial extensions for some new elements are also defined. The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol mechanism (defined in RFC 5222) that returns civic address element names used for validation of location information is clarified and is normatively updated to require a qualifying namespace identifier on each civic address element returned as part of the validation process. [STANDARDS-TRACK]


For the definition of Status, see RFC 2026.

For the definition of Stream, see RFC 4844.


Go to the RFC Editor Homepage.