rfc-6848

Specifying Civic Address Extensions in the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)

J. Winterbottom, M. Thomson, R. Barnes, B. Rosen, R. George
date2013-01 streamIETF arearai wggeopriv statusPROPOSED STANDARD pages21 canonicalhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6848 doi10.17487/RFC6848
New fields are occasionally added to civic addresses. A backward- compatible mechanism for adding civic address elements to the Geopriv civic address format is described. A formal mechanism for handling unsupported extensions when translating between XML and DHCP civic address forms is defined for entities that need to perform this translation. Initial extensions for some new elements are also defined. The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol mechanism (defined in RFC 5222) that returns civic address element names used for validation of location information is clarified and is normatively updated to require a qualifying namespace identifier on each civic address element returned as part of the validation process. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

updates

Extracted elements (22)

design-rationale §1

Extensions are always defined first in XML, not DHCP, because the XML format has a well-defined extension point (via XML namespaces) while DHCP does not. DHCP carriage is achieved by encoding the XML namespace URI, local name, and value into the single extension CAtype 40, avoiding the need for translating entities to understand each extension individually.

registry

design-rationale §3

New civic address extensions MUST be defined only in the XML format; the DHCP format is not extended further because DHCP extensions cannot be safely conveyed in environments where format conversion is possible. This ensures lossless round-trip conversion between XML and DHCP representations.

privacy, registry

errata §6

The RelaxNG schema in RFC 5222 requires namespace-qualified element names in <locationValidation> lists, making the example in Figure 6 of RFC 5222 erroneous. RFC 6848 provides the corrected example with proper namespace prefixes on all civic element names.

registry

interoperability-note §3.1

The XML namespace URI used for extensions is expressed as a URL in DHCP but MUST NOT be dereferenced or treated as a schema source location; it serves only as a unique identifier. Existing implementations conforming to RFC 4776 or RFC 5139 may discard extension elements but are not broken by their presence.

registry

normative-requirement §6 MUST

All elements listed in a LoST <valid>, <invalid>, or <unchecked> element MUST be qualified with a namespace. The example in RFC 5222 Section 6 is erroneous because it omits namespace qualification; this document normatively corrects that.

registry

normative-requirement §8.5 SHOULD

Any CAtype registration that duplicates or closely matches the semantics of an existing element SHOULD include a discussion of why the existing element was not reused, per expert reviewer guidance.

registry

normative-requirement §3.2 MUST

Elements with complex content or attributes other than namespace bindings and 'xml:lang' MUST be ignored if they are not understood during XML-to-DHCP conversion. Only elements with textual content and an optional xml:lang attribute can be carried in CAtype 40.

registry

normative-requirement §2 SHOULD

New civic address elements SHOULD use the basic 'caType' schema type defined in RFC 5139, which provides an optional 'xml:lang' attribute.

registry

normative-requirement §3 MUST

New extensions to the civic address format MUST be defined only for the XML format; these extensions are then conveyed in DHCP using the extension CAtype (CAtype 40). Further extensions to the DHCP format are prohibited.

registry

normative-requirement §3.3 MUST NOT

No new registrations of numeric CAtype numbers are permitted in the Civic Address Types Registry, except by IESG Approval under unusual circumstances. All new civic elements use CAtype 40 with a namespace URI and local name.

registry

normative-requirement §4 SHOULD

Type A civic elements SHOULD be implemented by all clients unless the client is certain the element will not be encountered. Type A elements require IETF Review; Type B elements only require Expert Review and MAY be implemented.

registry

protocol-element §3.2

The extension CAtype (CAtype code 40) carries three whitespace-separated values: a namespace URI, the local name of the XML element, and the text content of that element. This allows unsupported XML civic address extensions to be conveyed in DHCP without requiring the translating entity to understand the extension.

registry

protocol-element §5.4

The House Number Prefix (HNP) extension element complements the existing house number suffix, allowing expression of addresses like 'Z123 Main Street' where an alphanumeric prefix precedes the house number.

registry

protocol-element §5.2

The Milepost (MP) extension element indicates distance to or from a place along a road, trail, railroad, or other linear feature, for cases where a pole or marker with a numeric indication is not a house number.

registry

protocol-element §5.1

The Pole Number (PN) extension element identifies a lamp post or utility pole by its unique identifier. In some countries, the pole number is used by emergency callers to report their location.

registry

protocol-element §5.3

The Street Type Prefix (STP) extension element allows expression of addresses where the street type precedes the street name (e.g., 'Boulevard Colorado'), which the RFC 5139 schema could not easily represent.

registry

registry §8.6

A new URN sub-namespace is registered: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr:ext, for the civic address extension elements defined in this document.

registry

registry §8.7

A new XML schema is registered at urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr:ext, defining the PN, MP, STP, and HNP extension elements using the caType base type from RFC 5139.

registry

registry §8.4

Four new CAtypes are registered under CAtype 40 in the Civic Address Types Registry: Post Number (PN), Milepost (MP), Street Type Prefix (STP), and House Number Prefix (HNP), all in namespace urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr:ext, all Type A.

registry

registry §4

The CAtype registry (originally created by RFC 4776) is modified: it is closed to new numeric CAtypes, the NENA column is removed, columns for Namespace URI, Contact, Schema, and Type (A or B) are added, and the PIDF column is renamed to Local Name. All new civic address element registrations use CAtype 40.

registry

security-consideration §7

This document introduces no new security threats directly, but creators of civic address extensions should consult RFC 3694 Sections 4.3.1 and 5.1 to understand threat environments. Security threats applicable to civic address formats are described in RFC 4776 (DHCP) and RFC 5139 (XML).

security, privacy

wire-format §3.2

CAtype 40 encodes: 1-octet CAtype code (40), 1-octet Length, followed by UTF-8 encoded content consisting of Namespace URI, a space (U+0020), XML element local name, a space (U+0020), and extension value. Maximum total content is 255 octets.

registry