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

don't forget <country></country>

At 12:25 PM 11/14/2013, Rosen, Brian wrote:
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Geopriv mailing list
>Geopriv@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv