Subject: [Geopriv] Question about non-labeled field usage within RFC4119/4776

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:07:57 -0500

All

I'm looking for views on how the non-labeled CATypes are used within 
the XML of the PIDF-LO.  For example, CAType=25 is for building, but 
is the XML for this (if one chooses to use it):

	<cl:25>Building-1</cl:25>

?

I'm also confused about something between RFC4119 and 4776 that I'm 
sure was discussed, but I don't remember its outcome.  This has to do 
with the example given in RFC4119 for "Low Library" as <LMK>, yet in 
RFC4776, "Low Library" is under CAType=25 (and LMK is showing 
"Columbia University").

It seems like the usage is RFC4776 makes more sense, but I don't know 
what to do with the non-labeled (specifically the ones without a 
~3-letter character describer string)

I don't remember if we ever got down to these lower level aspects of 
the differences between RFC4119 and 4776.  I think this may have 
fallen between the cracks of the differences between NENA and PIDF, 
with no resolution. I hope I'm wrong.

Thanks

James

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:11:15 -0500

never mind ... I woke up and realized this was covered already

caffeine does wonders

sorry

>Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:07:57 -0500
>To: [email-masked]
>From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Question about non-labeled field usage within RFC4119/4776
>
>All
>
>sure was discussed, but I don't remember its outcome.  This has to 
>do with the example given in RFC4119 for "Low Library" as <LMK>, yet 
>in RFC4776, "Low Library" is under CAType=25 (and LMK is showing 
>"Columbia University").
>
>It seems like the usage is RFC4776 makes more sense, but I don't 
>know what to do with the non-labeled (specifically the ones without 
>a ~3-letter character describer string)
>