I have only had a brief look at this document but I'd like to second some of the concerns raised so far. 1) If locations can be registered on a fcfs basis we can expect receivers to see locations that they are unfamiliar with. As such, we need to do better about internationalization for locations. It is not good enough to treat locations as identifiers that are not displayed to a user if receivers are often going to run into locations. 2) Many of the definitions seem arbitrary. club vs bar vs cafe vs restaurant as an example. 3) The fact that some entries describe holonym relations without any defined structure to deal with this is at least concerning. --Sam _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf