Considerations for Civic Addresses in PIDF-LO draft-wolf-civicaddresses-austria-01 IETF 71, Mar 2008, Philadelphia, PA, USA Karl Heinz Wolf Alexander Mayrhofer nic.at GmbH

Motivation RFC 4776 asks for such documents: Mappings and considerations from additional countries may be informally gathered from time to time in independent documents published by the IETF. These should be titled "Civic Address Considerations for [Country]" and should contain similar information to the examples given here. Interopability: PSAPs need consistent mappings to be able to handle location information –Never confuse a PSAP agent! Location publishers: local PIDF-LO usage guidelines help avoiding misinterpretations –Consistent (national) mapping scheme required

What‘s new? IETF 70 –One document per country would be too much –However, a general guideline would be good –Keep Austria as an example Adopted as discussed in Vancouver –(file name unchanged yet) Contents: –Requirements for address mappings –A generic guideline for PIDF-LO element usage –An example mapping for Austrian civic addresses

Specifying PIDF-LO Usage Identify data source(s) –Official building register? Postal register? Line information database? … If possible, use elements as specified in RFC 4119 / If this does not seem possible: –Use an unused PIDF-LO element –Concatenate several data fields into one element –Avoid requesting new CAtypes Define the set of required and optional elements for use with this mapping. List elements not to be used.

Austria Example Most data fields fit into an existing PIDF-LO element, except the 20 “house number” fields Proposed solution to the house number problem: –Concatenate all 20 fields in the order provided by “Statistik Austria” –Delimiter: space (if original fields don’t need to be recovered) or semicolon (if original fields are needed) –House number “vor 1 - 1A”: vor;1;;- ;1;A;;;;;;;;;;; or vor 1 – 1A

Next Steps All suggestions from Vancouver addressed? How to proceed with this document? –In WG scope? (or “sneaked in” via 4776) –make it WG item as discussed in Vancouver? Questions?