{"draft":"draft-ietf-geopriv-local-civic-10","doc_id":"RFC6848","title":"Specifying Civic Address Extensions in the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)","authors":["J. Winterbottom","M. Thomson","R. Barnes","B. Rosen","R. George"],"format":["ASCII","HTML"],"page_count":"21","pub_status":"PROPOSED STANDARD","status":"PROPOSED STANDARD","source":"Geographic Location\/Privacy","abstract":"New fields are occasionally added to civic addresses.  A backward-\r\ncompatible mechanism for adding civic address elements to the Geopriv\r\ncivic address format is described.  A formal mechanism for handling\r\nunsupported extensions when translating between XML and DHCP civic\r\naddress forms is defined for entities that need to perform this\r\ntranslation.  Initial extensions for some new elements are also\r\ndefined.  The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol\r\nmechanism (defined in RFC 5222) that returns civic address element\r\nnames used for validation of location information is clarified and is\r\nnormatively updated to require a qualifying namespace identifier on\r\neach civic address element returned as part of the validation\r\nprocess.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]","pub_date":"January 2013","keywords":["[--------]","Extension","Local","Civic","Location","GEOPRIV"],"obsoletes":[],"obsoleted_by":[],"updates":["RFC4776","RFC5222"],"updated_by":[],"see_also":[],"doi":"10.17487\/RFC6848","errata_url":null}