The IESG has received a request from the Geographic Location/Privacy WG (geopriv) to consider the following document: - 'Specifying Civic Address Extensions in PIDF-LO' <draft-ietf-geopriv-local-civic-06.txt> as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-10-04. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract New fields are occasionally added to civic addresses. A backwardly- 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. Intial extensions for some new elements are also defined. The LoST (RFC5222) protocol mechanism 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. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geopriv-local-civic/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-geopriv-local-civic/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1829/
