[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 RFC 5774

GEOPRIV                                                          K. Wolf
Internet-Draft                                              A. Mayrhofer
Expires: April 30, 2009                                           nic.at
                                                            Oct 27, 2008


             Considerations for Civic Addresses in PIDF-LO
          draft-ietf-geopriv-civic-address-recommendations-00

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2009.

Abstract

   This document provides a guideline for creating civic address
   consideration documents for individual countries, as required by RFC
   4776.  Since civic addresses may have a different format in
   individual countries, such address considerations are necessary in
   order to map the civic address fields to the PIDF Location Object
   (PIDF-LO) elements.









Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   3.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

   4.  Specifying PIDF-LO Element Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     4.1.  Country  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  Country Subdivisions A1-A6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.3.  Road and Street Names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.4.  House Numbers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.5.  Local Names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.6.  Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.7.  Address Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.8.  Other Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

   5.  Austria Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.1.  Civic Address Format in Austria  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.2.  Sample Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.3.  Address Codes in Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.4.  Austrian Addresses in PIDF-LO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       5.4.1.  Country  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       5.4.2.  Country Subdivisions A1-A6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       5.4.3.  A4 Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       5.4.4.  A5 Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       5.4.5.  Road and Street Names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       5.4.6.  House Numbers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       5.4.7.  Local Names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       5.4.8.  Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       5.4.9.  Additional Code Element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       5.4.10. Other Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       5.4.11. Elements not to be used  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     5.5.  Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

   6.  Security & Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 27



Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


1.  Introduction

   The "Presence Information Data Format Location Object" (PIDF-LO)
   [RFC4119] is an an object format for carrying geographical
   information on the Internet.  PIDF-LO can be used to carry civic
   address information, and supports a range of "civic address types"
   (CATypes) to describe individual attributes of an civic address (see
   Section 2.2.1 of RFC 4119 and Section 3.1 of RFC 5139, the revised
   set of CATypes).

   In many use cases, PIDF-LOs are populated with data from long-
   established sources, like postal or governmental building registers,
   line information databases and yellow / white pages of infrastructure
   providers, or official residents registers.  The structure and format
   of data from these sources is almost always different from PIDF-LO's
   CAtypes definition - additionally, structure and format of those
   sources differs from country to country.

   To make use of such existing data sources, instructions for
   transposing such data into PIDF-LO format (element mapping) is
   required.  Preferrably, those mapping operations are reversable, so
   that location receipients like public safety answering points (PSAPs)
   can reconcile such PIDF-LOs with the original data source.
   Additionally, for any data source just a single mapping should exist
   in order to reduce the risk of ambiguous interpretation.

   Therefore, civic address considerations are necessary for individual
   countries to ensure uniform usage of PIDF-LO elements.  RFC 4776
   explicitly asks for such documents.  This guideline aims to support
   the creation of such civic address considerations.  For some
   countries RFC4776 already has some considerations on the
   administrative sub-divisions in Section 3.4.  Note that these
   examples are not compliant to RFC 5139 [RFC5139], since the A6
   element is not used for street names any more.

   This guideline document is based on the experience of writing such a
   civic address considerations document for Austria.  Since there were
   some difficulties when trying to define a mapping for Austrian civic
   address fields to PIDF-LO, this document summarizes important
   experience and issues to consider.  Even though every country has
   it's own address format and therefore other problems will occur, this
   guideline should help to identify difficulties.  As examples,
   Austrian addresses are used.


2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",



Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].


3.  Requirements

   The following requirements apply to defining address mapping
   considerations:
   o  For any data source, all elements must be considered (even if some
      of those fields are to be left out of the mapping, the document
      must describe that).
   o  Any CAtype field registered by the time the document is produced
      must be considered, and if it is not being used, that fact must be
      mentioned.  In case the set of CAtypes is revised by the IETF, the
      address consideration document should be updated.  Until then, the
      old mapping procedure must be used.
   o  Address mappings should be reversible, so that location recepients
      can identify the original records if they have access to the
      original source
   o  For any element used, at least one example must be provided.


4.  Specifying PIDF-LO Element Usage

   The purpose of the civic address consideration document for an
   individual country is to specify the list of PIDF-LO elements to be
   used, and the mapping between these elements and the fields of the
   respective local data source.

   The motivation for such a civic address consideration is to ensure
   interoperability.  Location recipients certainly want to rely on
   finding civic address parts in defined elements of PIDF-LO for
   further processing.  Especially when it comes to emergency calling,
   location information is a critical data where misinterpretation has
   to be avoided.  Therefore, a consistent mapping scheme is required.
   Since it is not possible to have global PIDF-LO elements which can be
   unambiguously used in every country in the world, the mapping must be
   defined on an national level.  It has to be ensured, that the mapping
   is used for all civic addresses in this country.

   Is is important to identify the civic address fields that can be
   mapped directly to the corresponding PIDF-LO elements and which civic
   address parts need special consideration.  PIDF-LO elements that are
   not needed in a specific country, can simply be omitted.  The civic
   address consideration document has to specify clearly that those
   elements must not be used for representing civic addresses in this
   country.




Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


   Even though the list of CAtypes could be extended, it is no feasible
   to add new elements for any new field in any data source in any
   country.  Therefore, unless new CAtypes are specified by the IETF,
   just the existing elements can be used.  That leaves the following
   two options in case the CAtypes do not provide a perfect fit for
   local civic address data (especially in case the local data contains
   more fields than PIDF-LO provides):
   1.  Concatenate several civic address fields into a single PIDF-LO
       element (define delimiters if applicable and make sure the
       separate civic address parts can be retrieved again)
   2.  Use a PIDF-LO element that is unused so far

   All existing civic address parts must find a place in the PIDF-LO.
   Even exotic addresses, that might be very rare, must be considered.
   Civic addresses can be very complex in some countries.  So it is very
   important to identify the data source that is representing all the
   possible civic addresses in a country.  Perhaps this database is
   maintained by a governmental company, by an authority, or the post.
   Moreover, it is important, that this data format is accepted by
   Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) operators and they have access
   to the data source.  Even PSAPs within a country may be organized
   differently and use different data bases for civic addresses.  It is
   crucial to define the PIDF-LO mapping in a way that all PSAPs can use
   it.  It is disireable to have PSAP operators involved in the process
   of developing civic address considerations, so that their needs are
   especially considered.

   Although the mapping is defined in a national way and the actual
   meaning of several PIDF-LO elements may not be clear to an outsider,
   at least the country element tells in what context this PIDF-LO was
   created.  In case of emergency calls, a PIDF-LO would just be passed
   to a PSAP in the same country as the location generator anyway.
   However, in border region there might be exceptions and the PIDF-LO
   is sent to a neighboring country.  The PIDF-LO can still be passed on
   to a PSAP in the right country because of the country element or the
   PSAP knows the mapping of the neighbor country.

   A consistent mapping is also very important for checking if two
   PIDF-LO documents describe the same location.  When civic address
   fields are put into different PIDF-LO elements, it may be difficult
   to recognize two equal addresses.

   The following sections discuss individual PIDF-LO elements and
   describe what to consider when defining civic address considerations.







Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


4.1.  Country

   The country element must hold the alpha-2 codes from ISO 3166-1
   [refs.ISO3166-1] in upper case characters as clarified in Section 3.3
   of RFC 5139 [RFC5139].

   This element cannot be redefined on a national basis since it
   identifies the country itself.  This element is used to identify
   which national mapping for civic addresses has been used in a
   specific PIDF-LO.

   Example for Austria: <country>AT</country>

4.2.  Country Subdivisions A1-A6

   The elements A1 to A6 are used to hold national subdivision
   identifiers, with A1 holding the top-level subdivision identifier.
   A1 may either contain the second part of ISO 3166-2 [refs.ISO3166-2]
   (see section 3.4 of RFC 5139 [RFC5139]), or values as described in
   the address consideration document for that country.  Elements "A2"
   to "A6" may contain additional levels of subdivisions (see section
   2.2.1 of RFC 4119).

   For A1, an address consideration document for a country should state
   whether ISO 3166-2 codes are to be used, alternatively it should
   define a list of valid values to be used (for example, subdivision
   names).  In either case, A1 must not be redefined for any other use
   than describing top level subdivisions.

   The document should also specify for each of the A2 - A6 elements
   whether they are required, optional, or not allowed.  For each
   element that is required or optional, it should define the set of
   valid values, either by listing them, or referring to such a list.

   For countries which are already discussed in section 3.4 of RFC 4776,
   it is recommended to follow those mappings.

   Example for Austria

   A1 province (Bundesland)
   A2 political district name or identifier (politscher Bezirk)
   A3 commune name or identifier (Gemeinde)
   A4 village name or identifier (Ortschaft)
   A5 cadastral municipality name or identifier (Katastralgemeindename
      or Katastralgemeindenummer)

   A6 must not be used.  For more details see the example in
   Section 5.4.2.



Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


4.3.  Road and Street Names

   PIDF-LO contains the following elements related to road names: RD,
   RDSEC, RDBR, RDSUBADDR, PRM, POM (section 3.1 and 3.2 of RFC 5139
   [RFC5139]) and PRD, POD, STS (section 3.4 of [RFC4776]).  Note that
   the use of the A6 element for street names is not valid (Section 3.2
   of RFC 5139 [RFC5139]).

   An address considerations document for a country should specify which
   of those nine elements are required, optional or not allowed.  If
   neccessary, the document may also describe more complicated
   dependencies (for example, "RD is optional, but required if any other
   road name element is used").

   For any required or optional element, it should describe the relation
   of those elements to elements of the data source used.  If special
   considerations apply to certain elements, they should be described.
   Also focus on the element STS, the street suffix.  It must be assured
   that this suffix is used in a consistent way.  In case no suffixes
   are known in a country or it is common to write the street name and
   the suffix together, it is allowed to forbid the usage of the STS
   element completely.  Suffixes may also be abbreviated.  Define the
   common abbreviations.

   Example for Austria:

   RD: street name

   All other road elements must not be used, street suffix is already
   included in RD element.  Street suffixes must not be abbreviated.

4.4.  House Numbers

   PIDF-LO specifies two elements related to house numbers: "house
   number" (HNO, numeric part only) and "house number suffix" (HNS) (see
   section 3.4 of RFC 4776).  However, in many countries house numbers
   have a more complex format.  In any case, a clear definition on
   mapping national house numbers to PIDF-LO is needed to minimize
   confusion potential.

   An address consideration document for a country should provide the
   following information with regards to house numbers: If the structure
   of house numbers in that country fits the HNO/HNS structure, the
   document must mandate to use those fields as described in RFC 4776.
   If the structure of house numbers does not directly fit into those
   two elements, the document must propose rules on how to map origin
   data into PIDF-LO elements.  Besides HNO and HNS, LOC and BLD could
   be considered for carrying house number information.



Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


   The document should describe whether abbreviations of house number
   elements are valid or not.  If abbreviations are used, they must be
   clearly defined.  If the house number consists of more than one
   number or multiple prefixes and suffixes may coexist, a delimiter
   symbol and a clear rule on how to concatenate all this data into the
   HNO and HNS element might be necessary.  Whenever concatenating data
   into one field, keep in mind that the location recipient might want
   to separate the data again.

   Example from Austria:

   HNO: concatenate all the data elements of Austrian house numbers into
   this single PIDF-LO element in a defined order with delimiter symbols
   (see Section 5.4.6 for the complete definition).

   HNS: not recommended to be used since there may be multiple suffixes
   for the different parts of the house number.

4.5.  Local Names

   PIDF-LO contains three elements to reflect local names: LMK, LOC, NAM
   (section 3.4 of RFC 4776).  Such local names may be of importance for
   the identification of a location, and may either coexist with a valid
   civic address or (in some cases) no address may be assigned so that
   the local names itself identify the location.  In rural regions for
   example, a farm name may be more common than a street address to
   identify a location.  Therefore, local names may either assist in
   finding a "street name" type addess, but they might also be the
   authoritative (and only) location information.

   Address consideration documents for individual countries should state
   for each of the LMK, LOC, NAM elements whether they are required,
   optional, or not to be used.  For any required or optional field, it
   should state potential values (source data) for the element.  In case
   that multiple values for an element may occur, a concatenation /
   selection strategy should be described.  Concatenation using ";" as
   seperator is recommended.

   If local name information and "common" address information is both
   available and used, the document should discuss the relation between
   those two address information types, and expected behaviour of
   location receipients.

   Example from Austria:

   NAM: contains the "Vulgoname" (local name), multiple local names are
   separated by a semicolon (if applicable)




Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


   LMK: contains the farm name (just one name possible) (if applicable)

   LOC: can be used without restriction for additional location
   information (as per RFC 4119)

   The "Vulgoname" is useful to identify the location within its
   locality, since official addresses especially in rural regions might
   not be well known.

4.6.  Floors

   PIDF-LO defines the element FLR to hold the floor information, but
   does not further specify its content.  Section 2.1 of RFC 3825
   provides guidance about floor numbering, but is not directly related
   to PIDF-LO.

   An address consideration document for a country should clearly
   specify how to express floors using the FLR element.  Following the
   above mentioned guidance is recommended, however, local nomenclature
   might require a completely different system.  The document should
   specify whether only numbers, text, or both are allowed in the FLR
   element.  If there are standard values for certain floors, they
   should be listed.  Abbreviations should be avoided, unless they are
   the primary way of identifying floors.

   Example from Austria:

   Numbers and text allowed.  The first floor (<FLR>1</FLR>) is the
   first "full" floor above the floor at street level.  The floor at
   street level is <FLR>EG</FLR> or <FLR>0</FLR>.  There might be
   intermediate floors, especially between the floor at street level and
   the "first floor".  Such intermediate floors have names like
   "Mezzanine", "Erster Halbstock" ("first half floor"), "Zweiter
   Halbstock" ("second half floor").

4.7.  Address Codes

   Address codes are available in several countries in different forms
   (for estates, buildings or usable units for example).  These codes
   identify an address record, and can be placed in the ADDCODE element
   in PIDF-LO.  Address codes can help the location recipient to
   determine the location, and to identify the original record in the
   data source.  Depending on the type of code, the code alone may be
   sufficient as location information within a country.

   The PIDF-LO country element can be used to identify the name space in
   which the address code elements are valid.  Countries may have more
   than one type of address codes (multiple namespaces), so it might be



Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


   necessary to choose the code that is most widely accepted (by PSAPs)
   or to have identifiers for the different codes.

   A PIDF-LO containing just the country and ADDCODE elements might
   provide enough information to retrieve a civic address, given the
   location recipient has access to the respective source database.

   A civic address considerations document for a country should specify
   whether and in which applications the use of ADDCODE elements is
   allowed.  If ADDCODE is used, its relation to the remaining elements
   must be clearly stated.  If several namespaces for address codes
   exist in a country, a mechanism to distinguish the different code
   spaces must be described.

   Examples from Austria:

   Statistik Austria provides 4 codes: Adresscode (AdrCD), Adresssubcode
   (AdrsubCD), Objektnummer (ObjNr) and Nutzungseinheitenlaufnummer
   (NtzLnr).

   The following format should be used:

 <ADDCODE>AdrCD=1234567;AdrsubCD=123;ObjNr=2333211;NtzLnr=0001</ADDCODE>

4.8.  Other Elements

   This section lists all the other PIDF-LO elements, that are not
   considered so far.

   To specify the location inside a building, the following elements can
   be useful:

   UNIT

   ROOM

   SEAT

   The following elements are related to postal codes:

   PC

   PCN

   POBOX

   To describe the place-type or the building, the following elements
   are available:



Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


   PLC - Place-type (see RFC 4589)

   BLD - Building (structure)

   The xml:lang attribute should be present in PIDF-LO XML documents.

   An address considerations document should specify for any of those
   elements whether they are required, optional, or must not be used.
   For any element that is required or optional, the semantics of its
   contents must be described, if it differs from the PIDF-LO base
   documents.


5.  Austria Example

   The Austrian "Gebaeude- und Wohnungsregistergesetz" (building and
   habitation registry law) is the legal basis for the obligation to
   provide a registry of civic addresses, buildings and their usable
   units (subdivisions of buildings).  The registry is operated by
   "Statistik Austria GmbH", a fully governmental owned company.
   Responsibility for keeping records in the registry up to date is an
   obligation to the local administration of the individual townships.

   The data format definition for the individual records is publicly
   available (data access itself is however restricted).  Hence, an
   uniform address data base for whole Austria is available.
   Unfortunately, Austrian civic addresses use a much more complex
   format compared to civic addresses in PIDF-LO.  A detailed
   description of the Austrian civic address data format is contained in
   section Section 5.1.

   A guideline of how to use PIDF-LO for Austrian addresses is necessary
   in order to avoid misinterpretations.  This is especially important
   if the PIDF-LO is conveyed during an emergency call to a Public
   Safety Answering Point (PSAP).  A precise location information is
   needed in case of emergency to send out responders without any delay
   to the correct location of the caller.  If every data-provider uses
   its own address mapping to PIDF-LO, confusion and misunderstandings
   are bound to happen.  However, ideally any PSAP should have full
   access to the data by Statistik Austria.  PSAPs must be able to rely
   that location information is always provided the same way by all
   data-providers.  To address the idiosyncrasies in Austria, the civic
   address elements are discussed subsequently.

5.1.  Civic Address Format in Austria

   Statistik Austria data describes estates, buildings and usable units
   [refs.merkmalskatalog].  On a single estate there may be any number



Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


   of buildings.  Apartment houses that have more than one staircase,
   are split up in separate buildings at every staircase.  In every
   building, there may be several usable units.  For example, an
   apartment house may have several apartments, counting as separate
   usable units.  Moreover, one building may have more than one address,
   but at least one address.  Below, the address elements for estates
   (Table 1), buildings (Table 2) and usable units (Table 3) are shown.












































Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


   +-------------------------+-------------------------------+---------+
   |  Statistik Austria name |          Explaination         | PIDF-LO |
   |                         |                               | Element |
   +-------------------------+-------------------------------+---------+
   |        Adresscode       |       address identifier      | ADDCODE |
   |                         |                               |         |
   |      Gemeindename,      |  commune name and identifier  |    A3   |
   |    Gemeindekennziffer   |                               |         |
   |                         |                               |         |
   |     Ortschaftsname,     |  village name and identifier  |    A4   |
   |   Ortschaftskennziffer  |                               |         |
   |                         |                               |         |
   |      Strassenname,      |   street name and identifier  |    RD   |
   |    Strassenkennziffer   |                               |         |
   |                         |                               |         |
   |  Katastralgemeindename, |   cadastral municipality and  |    A5   |
   | Katastralgemeindenummer |           identifier          |         |
   |                         |                               |         |
   |     Hausnummerntext     |   text in front of the house  |   HNO   |
   |                         |             number            |         |
   |                         |                               |         |
   |  Hausnummer - 1. Teil - |    first part of the house    |   HNO   |
   |          Nummer         |        number, numeric        |         |
   |                         |                               |         |
   |  Hausnummer - 1. Teil - |    first part of the house    |   HNO   |
   |        Buchstabe        |       number, character       |         |
   |                         |                               |         |
   |       Hausnummer -      |  links first and Bis part of  |   HNO   |
   | Verbindungszeichen Teil |          house number         |         |
   |         1 -> Bis        |                               |         |
   |                         |                               |         |
   | Hausnummer - Bis-Nummer |  number of bis part of house  |   HNO   |
   |                         |             number            |         |
   |                         |                               |         |
   |       Hausnummer -      |    character of bis part of   |   HNO   |
   |      Bis-Buchstabe      |          house number         |         |
   |                         |                               |         |
   |    Hausnummernbereich   |     indicates if all house    |   HNO   |
   |                         | numbers specified or just odd |         |
   |                         |   or even numbers are stated  |         |
   |                         |                               |         |
   |       Postleitzahl      |          postal code          |    PC   |
   |                         |                               |         |
   |   Postleitzahlengebiet  |     postal community code     |   PCN   |
   |                         |                               |         |
   |        Vulgoname        |           local name          |   NAM   |
   |                         |                               |         |




Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


   |         Hofname         |           farm name           |   LMK   |
   +-------------------------+-------------------------------+---------+

                Table 1: Civic Address Elements for Estates

   +------------------------+--------------------------------+---------+
   | Statistik Austria name |          Explaination          | PIDF-LO |
   |                        |                                | Element |
   +------------------------+--------------------------------+---------+
   |      Adressubcode      |         address subcode        | ADDCODE |
   |                        |                                |         |
   |      Objektnummer      |           object code          | ADDCODE |
   |                        |                                |         |
   |      Hausnummer -      |  links Bis and second part of  |   HNO   |
   |   Verbindungszeichen   |          house number          |         |
   |   Teil Bis -> Teil 2   |                                |         |
   |                        |                                |         |
   | Hausnummer - 2. Teil - |    second part of the house    |   HNO   |
   |         Nummer         |         number, numeric        |         |
   |                        |                                |         |
   | Hausnummer - 2. Teil - |    second part of the house    |   HNO   |
   |        Buchstabe       |        number, character       |         |
   |                        |                                |         |
   |      Hausnummer -      | links second and third part of |   HNO   |
   |   Verbindungszeichen   |          house number          |         |
   |     Teil 2-> Teil 3    |                                |         |
   |                        |                                |         |
   | Hausnummer - 3. Teil - |     third part of the house    |   HNO   |
   |         Nummer         |         number, numeric        |         |
   |                        |                                |         |
   | Hausnummer - 3. Teil - |     third part of the house    |   HNO   |
   |        Buchstabe       |        number, character       |         |
   |                        |                                |         |
   | Gebaeudeunterscheidung |     for differentiation of     |   HNO   |
   |                        |   buildings, e.g. Maierweg 27  |         |
   |                        |     Hotel vers. Maierweg 27    |         |
   |                        |         Appartmenthaus         |         |
   |                        |                                |         |
   +------------------------+--------------------------------+---------+

         Table 2: Additional Civic Address Elements for Buildings










Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


   +-----------------------------+---------------------------+---------+
   |    Statistik Austria name   |        Explaination       | PIDF-LO |
   |                             |                           | Element |
   +-----------------------------+---------------------------+---------+
   | Nutzungseinheitenlaufnummer |      usable unit code     | ADDCODE |
   |                             |                           |         |
   |          Tuernummer         |        door number        |   HNO   |
   |                             |                           |         |
   |          Topnummer          |        unit number        |   HNO   |
   |                             |                           |         |
   |       Lagebeschreibung      |   for verbal description  |   HNO   |
   |                             |                           |         |
   |             Lage            |  describes if the usable  |   FLR   |
   |                             |  unit is in the basement, |         |
   |                             |  mezzanine, attic floor,  |         |
   |                             |   ... (but not the floor  |         |
   |                             |          number)          |         |
   |                             |                           |         |
   |          Stockwerk          |           floor           |   FLR   |
   |                             |                           |         |
   +-----------------------------+---------------------------+---------+

        Table 3: Additional Civic Address Elements for usable units

   Note: "Floors" in Austria (as in most parts of Europe) are counted
   differently compared to the US.  The "1st floor" in Austria is
   actually the floor above the floor at street level (2nd floor in US),
   not considering the fact that in old buildings there might be even
   more floors between street level and 1st floor, like "mezzanine",
   "2nd mezzanine".  So, an Austrian "1st floor" could well be the "4th
   floor" according to US nomenclature.

   According to Statistik Austria [refs.adrwarten], 81.5% of Austrian
   addresses are of the simple type Musterstrasse 1 (Musterstrasse is an
   example street name). 5% of all addresses have an additional
   character, like Musterstrasse 1b. 1% of Austrian addresses look like
   Musterstrasse 21A - 23A. For 8% of addresses, an additional separator
   is necessary, like Musterstrasse 10 Haus 1 Stiege 2 or Musterstrasse
   20 Gruppe A Reihe 1 Parzelle 13 or Musterstrasse 30 Weg 1 Parzelle
   10.  Very seldom, there are so called special addresses (0.03%), for
   example Musterstrasse gegenueber 3a, meaning this address is actually
   vis-a-vis of house number 3A. Rather surprisingly, 4.47% of Austrian
   addresses contain the identifier of the estate since no house number
   is assigned at all, for example: Musterstrasse GNR 1234, or
   Musterstrasse GNR .12/4 Kirche (this type of addresses is common for
   churches) or a real example in Stockerau: Kolomaniwoerth GNR 1583.
   This identifier is stored by Statistik Austria as Hausnummerntext.
   Otherwise one could misinterpret this number as a house number, what



Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


   would be definitely wrong.

5.2.  Sample Addresses

   In order to clarify the Austrian civic address format, this section
   provides some exemplary addresses:

   1234 Musterstadt, Hauptstrasse 1a - 5a Block 1b Haus 2c Stiege 1
   Postleitzahl: 1234
   Stadt: Musterstadt
   Strasse: Hauptstrasse
   Hausnummer - 1.  Teil - Nummer: 1
   Hausnummer - 1.  Teil - Buchstabe: a
   Hausnummer - Verbindungszeichen Teil 1 -> Bis: -
   Hausnummer - 2.  Teil - Nummer: 5
   Hausnummer - 2.  Teil - Buchstabe: a
   Hausnummer - Verbindungszeichen Teil Bis -> Teil 2: Block
   Hausnummer - 2.  Teil - Nummer: 1
   Hausnummer - 2.  Teil - Buchstabe: b
   Hausnummer - Verbindungszeichen Teil 2-> Teil 3: Haus
   Hausnummer - 3.  Teil - Nummer: 2
   Hausnummer - 3.  Teil - Buchstabe: c
   Gebaeudeunterscheidung: Stiege 1

   1234 Musterstadt, Musterstrasse 13 Hotel
   Postleitzahl: 1234
   Stadt: Musterstadt
   Strasse: Musterstrasse
   Hausnummer - 1. Teil - Nummer: 13
   Gebaeudeunterscheidung: Hotel

   6020 Innsbruck, Anichstrasse vor 35
   Postleitzahl: 6020
   Stadt: Innsbruck
   Strasse: Anichstrasse
   Hausnummerntext: vor ("in front of")
   Hausnummer: 35

   6173 Oberperfuss, Riedl 3097 (Pfarrkirche)
   Postleitzahl: 6173
   Stadt: Oberperfuss
   Strasse: Riedl
   Hausnummerntext: 3097
   (since the estate identifier is 81305 3097 where 81305 is the
   Katastralgemeindenummer (cadastral municipality) and no house
   number is assigned)
   Vulgoname: Pfarrkirche




Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


5.3.  Address Codes in Austria

   Statistik Austria registers 4 codes: Adresscode, Adresssubcode,
   Objektnummer and the Nutzungseinheitenlaufnummer.  The Adresscode (7
   digits) is a unique code for an address in Austria.  The
   Adressregister maps the Adresscode to the civic address.  If there is
   a building located at an address, there is also an Adresssubcode (3
   digits) assigned.  Every building at an address has its own
   Adresssubcode (assigned sequentially starting with 001, 002, 003 and
   so on) in order to distinguish between buildings at the same address.
   Furthermore, every building located in Austria has its own unique
   code, the Objektnummer (7 digits).  This code identifies the building
   independent of the Adresscode.  That's because addresses are subject
   to change while the building may persist.  To differ multiple usable
   units inside a building, the Nutzungseinheitenlaufnummer (4 digits)
   is used.  This code is also assigned in sequential order for each
   building.

   Besides, every address and building is geocoded by Statistik Austria.
   Hence, if every PIDF-LO location object would carry data in the
   format of Statistik Austria and every PSAP would use the database of
   Statistik Austria for mapping, a time saving, definite mapping
   without irregularities could be achieved.

   Besides these codes, Statistik Austria maintains reference numbers
   for communes, localities or streets, to mention just a few.

5.4.  Austrian Addresses in PIDF-LO

   A good number of Austrian addresses do not fit into the PIDF-LO
   format, as described above.  So the following subsection define the
   mapping procedure.

5.4.1.  Country

   The country element for Austria must be set to AT, since this is the
   ISO 3166-1 [refs.ISO3166-1] alpha-2 code for Austria.

   <country>AT</country>

   The usage of the ISO 3166 code is demanded by RFC 4119 [RFC4119] and
   RFC 5139 [RFC5139] proposes to use upper case characters only.

5.4.2.  Country Subdivisions A1-A6







Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


   A1 province (Bundesland), Section 5.4.2.1
   A2 political district name or identifier (politscher Bezirk),
      Section 5.4.2.2
   A3 commune name or identifier (Gemeinde), Section 5.4.2.3
   A4 village name or identifier (Ortschaft), Section 5.4.2.4
   A5 cadastral municipality name or identifier (Katastralgemeindename
      or Katastralgemeindenummer), Section 5.4.2.5

   Element A6 must not be used.

   Last, there is an exception to mention concerning the Austrian
   capital Vienna (Wien).  The city of Vienna is equal to its political
   district and even the province is called Vienna.  Nevertheless,
   Vienna is separated in 23 districts within the same political
   district.  Consequently, an address in Vienna would look like:

   <country>AT</country>
   <A1>Wien</A1>
   <A2>Wien</A2>
   <A3>Wien</A3>
   <A4>Favoriten</A4> or <A4>10<A4>
   <A5>Inzersdorf Stadt<A5>

   The element A4, holding the city division, can hold the name or the
   number of the district.

5.4.2.1.  A1 Element

   As proposed in RFC 5139 [RFC5139], for the PIDF-LO element A1, the
   second part of ISO 3166-2 [refs.ISO3166-2] can be used.  However, in
   Austria it is also common to write out the names of the states.
   Table 4 shows the possible values of the A1 element for Austrian
   states.


















Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


          +-------------------+--------------------------------+
          |     Bundesland    | second part of ISO 3166-2 code |
          +-------------------+--------------------------------+
          |     Burgenland    |                1               |
          |                   |                                |
          |      Kaernten     |                2               |
          |                   |                                |
          | Niederoesterreich |                3               |
          |                   |                                |
          |  Oberoesterreich  |                4               |
          |                   |                                |
          |      Salzburg     |                5               |
          |                   |                                |
          |     Steiermark    |                6               |
          |                   |                                |
          |       Tirol       |                7               |
          |                   |                                |
          |     Vorarlberg    |                8               |
          |                   |                                |
          |        Wien       |                9               |
          +-------------------+--------------------------------+

                  Table 4: A1 element format for Austria

5.4.2.2.  A2 Element

   Names of the Austrian political districts are available at Statistik
   Austria [refs.bezirke].  These names, the unique code for the
   politcal district or both can be used for the A2 element.  If the
   content of the A2 elment is numeric, obviously the code is provieded
   (there is no political district in Austria with a number in its
   name).  In case both, the name and the code are provided, they are
   seperated by a semicolon, and the name must be listed first.

   The district of "Bruck an der Leitha" could be represented by:

   <A2>Bruck an der Leitha<A2> or <A2>307</A2> or
   <A2>Bruck an der Leitha;307</A2>

5.4.2.3.  A3 Element

   The element A3 holds the Gemeindename (commune name) or the
   identifier of the Gemeinde, or both separated by a semicolon (the
   name must be listed first).  If the content of the A3 element
   consists of a number only, it is obvious that just the identifier is
   provided.  Statistik Austria maintains a table with the Gemeindenamen
   and identifiers [refs.gemeinden], which must be used as the content
   for the A3 element, no other spelling is allowed.



Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


   Sample:

   <A3>Neusiedl am See</A3>
   or
   <A3>10713</A3>
   or
   <A3>Neusiedl am See;10713</A3>

5.4.3.  A4 Element

   The element A4 holds the Ortschaftsname (village name), the
   Ortschaftskennziffer (the identifier), or both separated by a
   semicolon (the name must be listed first).  If the content of the A4
   element consists of a number only, it is obvious that just the
   identifier is provided since there are no Ortschaftsnamen in Austria
   which contain a number.  Statistik Austria maintains a table with the
   Ortschaftsnamen and identifiers [refs.ortschaften], which must be
   used as the content for the A4 element, no other spelling is allowed.

   Sample:

<A4>Wilfleinsdorf</A4> or <A4>03448</A4> or <A4>Wilfleinsdorf;03448</A4>

5.4.4.  A5 Element

   The element A5 holds the Katastralgemeindename (cadastral
   municipality), the Katastralgemeindekennziffer (the identifier), or
   both separated by a semicolon (the name must be listed first).  If
   the content of the A5 element consists of a number only, it is
   obvious that just the identifier is provided since there are no
   Katastragemeindenamen in Austria which contain a number.

   Sample (Vienna, Fuenfhaus):

   <A5>Oberbaumgarten</A5> or <A5>1208</A5> or
   <A5>Oberbaumgarten;1208</A5>

5.4.5.  Road and Street Names

   The PIDF-LO element RD holds the complete street name, including the
   street suffix.  No abbreviations are allowed.  No other elements are
   needed for streets and must not be used.

5.4.6.  House Numbers

   Statistik Austria lists 14 data fields related to the house number of
   a building plus another 5 fields for distinction of different usable
   units inside a building (including the floor, which has a separate



Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


   element in PIDF-LO).  Unfortunately, PIDF-LO only defines a single
   house number element (HNO, numeric part only) and a house number
   suffix element (HNS).  Therefore, the rules of the HNO element have
   to be violated in order to accomodate all data: All house number data
   is concatenate into a single HNO element, even though it is expected
   to hold numeric part only.

   If the location recipient does not need to separate the data elements
   again, the house number parts may be simply concatenated with spaces
   in between (no spaces between the numeric part of a house number and
   its related character).  However, if the location recipient needs to
   get back the original data, it is necessary to use a semicolon as
   delimiter symbol (Austrian house numbers do not contain semicolons).
   The house number parts MUST be provided in the order as they are
   listed by the Statistik Austria document [refs.merkmalskatalog].  For
   user interface representation, the semicolon separated format can be
   transformed by replacing semicolons by spaces (multiple spaces should
   be combined) and no space should be present between a numeric part of
   a house number part and its related character.

   It is recommended, not to use the HNS element for Austrian addresses,
   since there are addresses that do not have just a single suffix.  For
   example, the address Lazarettgasse 13A could be mapped by:

   <HNO>13</HNO> <HNS>A</HNS>

   However, the building at Lazarettgasse has the house number 13A -
   13C. Consequently, just the HNO element should be used:

   <HNO>13A - 13C</HNO>

   And even for addresses with a house number consisting of a single
   number and a single prefix, just HNO should be used because of
   uniformity:

   <HNO>13A</HNO>

   Addresses with a house number text would look like:

   <HNO>vor 1 - 1A</HNO>

   with no HNS element.

   The same example with semicolon as delimiter symbol would look like:

   <HNO>vor;1;;-;1;A;;;;;;;;;;;</HNO>





Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


5.4.7.  Local Names

   NAM: contains the Vulgoname (local name), multiple local names are
   separated by a semicolon (if applicable)

   LMK: contains the farm name (just one name possible) (if applicable)

   LOC: can be used without restriction for additional location
   information (as per RFC 4119)

5.4.8.  Floors

   The floor element may contain numbers or text describing the floor.
   The first floor (<FLR>1</FLR>) is the floor above the floor at street
   level.  The floor at street level is <FLR>EG</FLR> or <FLR>0</FLR>.
   Other floors may have names like mezzanine, for example.  The
   Statistik Austria data elements Lage and Stockwerk are concatenated
   if necessary.

5.4.9.  Additional Code Element

   The element additional code may be used to hold the codes provided by
   Statistik Austria.  There is an Adresscode, Adressubcode,
   Objektnummer and a Nutzungseinheitenlaufnummer.  These unique codes
   identify the location.  Actually, these codes alone would be enough,
   but requires that the location recipient has access to the database
   of Statistik Austria.

   If the additional code in a PIDF-LO document is going to hold the
   codes from Statistik Austria, the following format should be used:

 <ADDCODE>AdrCD=1234567;AdrsubCD=123;ObjNr=2333211;NtzLnr=0001</ADDCODE>

   It is not necessary to provide all codes, but there are some
   restrictions: The Adresssubcode cannot be used without an Adresscode.
   More restrictions are definded by Statistik Austria.  By setting the
   country element to AT (see Section 4.1), indicating an Austrian
   address, the Additional Code element is expected to hold codes from
   Statistik Austria only.  When creating PIDF-LO documents using
   address codes by Statistik Austria, the country and ADDCODE elements
   are mandatory.

5.4.10.  Other Elements

   The elements PC and PCN can hold the data form Statistik Austria, the
   POBOX can be used if the post assigned a post office box.  At least
   the PC element should be present.




Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


   PC: Postleitzahl (postal code)

   PCN: Postleitzahlengebiet (postal community name)

   POBOX: Postfach

   The elements UNIT, ROOM, SEAT, PLC and BLD may be used without
   further restriction.

5.4.11.  Elements not to be used

   A6
   STS
   HNS
   PRD
   POD
   RDBR
   RDSUBBR
   PRM
   POM

5.5.  Example

   This section shows an example mapping of an Austrian address mapping
   to PIDF-LO element.


























Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


 <?xml version="1.0" lang="de" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  <presence xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"
     xmlns:gp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"
     xmlns:cl="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"
     entity="pres:123@examplehost">
   <tuple id="123456">
    <status>
     <gp:geopriv>
       <gp:location-info>
         <cl:civicAddress>
           <cl:country>AT</country>
           <cl:A1>Wien</A1>
           <cl:A2>Wien</A2>
           <cl:A3>Wien</A3>
           <cl:A4>9</A4>
           <cl:RD>Lazarettgasse</RD>
           <cl:HNO>;13;A;-;13;C;;;;;;;;;;;;</HNO>
           <cl:PC>1090<PC>
         </cl:civicAddress>
       </gp:location-info>
       <gp:usage-rules>
         <gp:retransmission-allowed>yes</gp:retransmission-allowed>
         <gp:retention-expiry>2007-11-10T12:00:00Z</gp:retention-expiry>
       </gp:usage-rules>
     </gp:geopriv>
    </status>
    <timestamp>2007-11-09T12:00:00Z</timestamp>
   </tuple>
  </presence>


6.  Security & Privacy Considerations

   RFC 4119 contains general security considerations for handling PIDF-
   LOs.  In addition to that, it has to be considered that data from the
   Austrian building and habitation unit registry are generally not
   public, so restrictions as imposed on the original data set MUST also
   be imposed on the resulting PIDF-LO document.


7.  IANA Considerations

   At this stage, this document contains no considerations for IANA.


8.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank Gregor Jaenin for contributing insights



Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


   about the Austrian civic address data format.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4119]  Peterson, J., "A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object
              Format", RFC 4119, December 2005.

   [RFC4776]  Schulzrinne, H., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              (DHCPv4 and DHCPv6) Option for Civic Addresses
              Configuration Information", RFC 4776, November 2006.

   [RFC5139]  Thomson, M. and J. Winterbottom, "Revised Civic Location
              Format for Presence Information Data Format Location
              Object (PIDF-LO)", RFC 5139, February 2008.

9.2.  Informative References

   [refs.adrwarten]
              Statistik Austria, "Handbuch Adress-GWR-Online Teil A
              Theoretisches Handbuch Kapitel 2 Warten von Adressen im
              Adress-GWR-Online", Jan 2005.

   [refs.merkmalskatalog]
              Statistik Austria, "Handbuch Adress-GWR-Online Teil C
              Anhang 2 Merkmalskatalog", Sept 2004.

   [refs.ISO3166-1]
              International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for
              the representation of names of countries and their
              subdivisions - Part 1: Country codes", ISO Standard 3166-
              1:1997, 1997.

   [refs.ISO3166-2]
              International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for
              the representation of names of countries and their
              subdivisions - Part 2: Country subdivision code", ISO
              Standard 3166-2:1998, 1998.

   [refs.bezirke]
              Statistik Austria, "Politische Bezirke, Gebietsstand
              2008", Feb 2008.




Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


   [refs.gemeinden]
              Statistik Austria, "Gemeindeliste sortiert nach
              Gemeindekennziffer, Gebietsstand 2008", Feb 2008.

   [refs.ortschaften]
              Statistik Austria, "Gemeinden mit Ortschaften und
              Postleitzahlen, Gebietsstand 2008", Feb 2008.


Authors' Addresses

   Karl Heinz Wolf
   nic.at GmbH
   Karlsplatz 1/2/9
   Wien  A-1010
   Austria

   Phone: +43 1 5056416 37
   Email: karlheinz.wolf@nic.at
   URI:   http://www.nic.at/


   Alexander Mayrhofer
   nic.at GmbH
   Karlsplatz 1/2/9
   Wien  A-1010
   Austria

   Phone: +43 1 5056416 34
   Email: alexander.mayrhofer@nic.at
   URI:   http://www.nic.at/




















Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft        Civic Address Considerations              Oct 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.











Wolf & Mayrhofer         Expires April 30, 2009                [Page 27]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/