Subject: [Geopriv] Review of draft-linsner-geopriv-adminspecific-00.txt

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:28:20 +0100

Hi Marc,
Hi Subha,

I read your draft
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/draft-linsner-geopriv-adminspecific-00.txt

In short, the document defines additional civic address fields that are 
used in a proprietary / vendor-specific way.

This raises the question of  PIDF-LO extensibility.

Potentially, one could re-use even the vendor-specific Object Identifier 
(OID) to utilize the IANA assigned "SMI Network Management Private 
Enterprise Codes" values.

Theoretically, one does not need any IETF document to extend PIDF-LO; 
RFC 4119 does not say anything regarding this issue. However, it might 
be useful to define one (or more elements) to support such an extension 
to simplify implementation work.

I don't know what the best approach is. The current document defines a 
few new civic elements <as-1> to <as-25> (together with <admin>). There 
are also more elegant ways to specify a template for extensions to allow 
the following information to be expressed in an XML schema:
* Namespace
* Attribute/Element Name
* Data Type
In the SAML specification, for example, I found an extensibility 
mechanism for Attribute Statements that looked quite interesting. Take a 
look at 
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/svn/draft-schubert-sipping-saml-cpc/draft-schubert-sipping-saml-cpc-03.txt 
to see how it works.

In any case, I believe we should give this document a serious look and 
progress it since it is useful.

Ciao
Hannes

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