Re: [Ecrit] [Geopriv] Verifying errata 2511

"Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com> Fri, 05 August 2011 00:15 UTC

Return-Path: <rbarnes@bbn.com>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C98711E808D for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.595
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VkBbzc0Qq6pt for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E5F11E807C for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.89.254.134] (port=58212 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.74 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <rbarnes@bbn.com>) id 1Qp84c-000GTw-Kg; Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:15:35 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMD4ERv2py=rAwfCPSMFytzf541fWdDZEB=XY-55Q41Gkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:15:29 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DB622925-0C30-4E88-BA29-0BEBD9459AC3@bbn.com>
References: <1220336F-08F3-4B50-A1A8-5AF28944BF8C@nostrum.com> <CA+9kkMD4ERv2py=rAwfCPSMFytzf541fWdDZEB=XY-55Q41Gkw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: ecrit@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] [Geopriv] Verifying errata 2511
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 00:15:22 -0000

The confusion arises when you have civic address elements that originate from multiple namespaces, as in draft-ietf-geopriv-local-civic:

<civicAddress xml:lang="en-GB"
     xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"
     xmlns:cdc="http://devon.canals.org.uk/civic">
   <country>UK</country>
   <A1>Devon</A1>
   <A3>Monkokehampton</A3>
   <RD>Deckport</RD>
   <STS>Cross</STS>

   <cdc:bridge>21451338</cdc:bridge>

</civicAddress>


On Aug 4, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:

> I don't think this is needed.  If you look at the full response,
> you'll see that this namespace is declared in reference to the
> civicAddress in both the query and response:
> 
> <civicAddress
>           xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr">
>           <country>DE</country>
>           <A1>Bavaria</A1>
>           <A3>Munich</A3>
>           <PC>81675</PC>
>         </civicAddress>
> 
> The location ID is present in both as well, so I don't think there
> should be much confusion about how the location validation response
> elements are to be interepreted.  They are specific to a location,
> which already has a namespace attached.
> 
> It may be that further text is required to make that even more clear,
> but I don't think adding a namespace within the locationValidation
> response itself is needed.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Ted
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:
>> (note the crosspost - please reply only to ecrit@ietf.org)
>> Please see <http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=2511>
>> and thread on the Ecrit list titled
>> 
>> Erratum report on erratum 2511 to RFC 5222 (LoST: A Location-to-Service
>> Translation Protocol)
>> 
>> which started Nov 23, 2010.
>> Given the subsequent discussion of draft-ietf-geopriv-local-civic, I plan to
>> mark this errata as
>> Verified. If you don't think this is the correct thing to do, please let me
>> know ASAP. If there are no
>> replies, I will verify that errata next Thursday (11Aug)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit