Re: [Geopriv] review of draft-google-self-published-geofeeds

FYI I suggested in the meeting that they consider adopting A1-A4 from PIDF, unmodified, to solve this problem.  I don’t think postal codes are the right way to do it.

Brian

On Nov 14, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> wrote:

> Alissa, et al,
> 
> I have reviewed the geofeeds document. Here's my feedback (which has
> already been given to the document authors):
> 
> 1) Section 3.2 is about using the RIR Whois system as a bootstrap for
> finding the CSV file. It might be useful to mention that the IETF
> WEIRDS
> working group is in the process of specifying RDAP, a replacement for
> Whois. Section 5.2 of draft-ietf-weirds-json-response-06 discusses the
> linking system for RDAP, which simply re-uses the RFC 5988 IANA
> registry. Therefore it would be useful for RDAP and other protocols if
> there is an RFC 5988 link relationship registered for geofeeds.
> 
> 2) Similar to the above, registration of a media type would be useful
> for referencing the geofeeds. Something along the lines of
> application/geofeed+csv.
> 
> 3) We might want to consider offering the ability for specifying sets
> of postal codes for situations where a single postal code might be too
> specific for certain contexts. This might address some privacy
> concerns, and may offer the ability to reduce redundant lines in the
> CSV file (e.g. Where a network prefix can be found in 2 zip codes).
> 
> -andy
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv