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

Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu> Thu, 26 February 2009 12:35 UTC

Return-Path: <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
X-Original-To: geopriv@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: geopriv@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E0423A6BAA; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 04:35:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MGF21dPwamdJ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 04:35:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brinza.cc.columbia.edu (brinza.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.8]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C9C83A6A8C; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 04:35:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 12-198-63-152att-inc.com (12-198-63-152att-inc.com [12.198.63.152] (may be forged)) (user=hgs10 mech=PLAIN bits=0) by brinza.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.3/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n1QCZXLF021449 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:35:35 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <21744BCF-FF4D-47BB-BA3F-6050998BF4C3@cs.columbia.edu>
From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <49A5EA06.2080307@bbn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:35:33 -0500
References: <49A4B9D6.9040805@huawei.com> <E51D5B15BFDEFD448F90BDD17D41CFF1056FE664@AHQEX1.andrew.com> <f77644530902251226v2cc6009u73741d357540be85@mail.gmail.com> <49A5E4FE.3000603@huawei.com> <49A5EA06.2080307@bbn.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
X-No-Spam-Score: Local
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.65 on 128.59.29.8
Cc: GEOPRIV <geopriv@ietf.org>, ECRIT IETF <ecrit@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] [Ecrit] draft-george-ecrit-lamp-post-00]
X-BeenThere: geopriv@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Geographic Location/Privacy <geopriv.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv>
List-Post: <mailto:geopriv@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:35:23 -0000

Richard,

pole numbers are actually fairly common and don't seem to be  
restricted to a particular country. For example, in New Jersey (where  
I live), towns are so close together that it is often difficult to  
tell which one you are in at the moment. The "insider" recommendation  
is to look at the nearest utility pole; the first two letters  
correspond to the town name (followed by a unique numeric identifier).

Henning

On Feb 25, 2009, at 8:01 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>