Re: [Geopriv] [Ecrit] draft-george-ecrit-lamp-post-00]

Robins,

Given that your use case may be of a more local than global nature, I 
wonder if it would be appropriate to instead set a local standard that 
maps to the global (RFC 5139) standard.  We've been working on a 
document that has recommendations for how to do that:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-civic-address-recommendations>

--Richard

Robins George wrote:
> 
> I 'd prefer using the PIDF-LO IANA procedure for adding a new element 
> for lamp posts.
> I think that re-using the address code is probably not a particularly 
> good idea.
> 
> -robins
> 
> Karl Heinz Wolf wrote:
>> Wouldn't the ADDCODE (Additional Code) element be a good place for the
>> lamp number code?
>>
>> karl heinz
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Winterbottom, James
>> <James.Winterbottom@andrew.com> wrote:
>>  
>>> A couple of things.
>>>
>>> First this should be posted to geopriv and ecrit.
>>>
>>> Secondly, could these not be covered by the LOC and landmark fields?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> James
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>>> Of Robins George
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 25 February 2009 2:24 PM
>>> To: ECRIT IETF
>>> Subject: [Ecrit] draft-george-ecrit-lamp-post-00]
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I have submitted a draft which describes an extension to civic location
>>> format and
>>> adds new element PN (pole number). PN carries utility and lamp post
>>> number
>>> information which can identify a civic location.
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-george-ecrit-lamp-post-00
>>>
>>> Comments are appreciated.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Robins.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
> 