Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Comments on [draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-02.txt]

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:09:03 -0500

I agree with including "Civic Address Validation" as a meeting topic.
This varies around the country, from local government to local
government and becomes problematical especially for emergency services.
 
Jenny Hansen

________________________________

From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:00 AM
To: ECRIT
Subject: [Ecrit] Comments on [draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-02.txt]

I reviewed this document from the perspective of an employee of a major
service provider. Nonetheless, these opinions are mine, as an
individual.

I believe this is the right type of protocol to meet this need, and that
it is progressing well. I've been following the discussion of issues,
and am satisfied that the right issues are being discussed and properly
addressed. I have no specific comments on the actual text.

I would like to see some other industry bodies (such as NENA in the US)
expand on "Civic Address Validation". I think the level of detail in
this document is appropriate, but that for validation to really work,
national bodies need to specify more detailed validation rules,
consistent with how location information is managed and used in their
country. For example, when ZIP Code and city name are both "valid", but
do not match, which is considered invalid? Is the street name used as a
tie breaker (street name is valid in ZIP code, but not city)? This might
be useful work to suggest at the next SDO meeting.

Barbara Stark
BellSouth Science & Technology (a recently acquired part of AT&T) 

*****

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material from all computers. GA623

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:57:10 -0500

We recently did some work on this topic in the NENA i2.5 effort.  We had a
discussion today about how to get the ideas out of that work into the LoST
effort.  Terry Reese will be sending an email to ecrit on that subject.

Brian

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:09 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] Comments on [draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-02.txt]

I agree with including "Civic Address Validation" as a meeting topic. This
varies around the country, from local government to local government and
becomes problematical especially for emergency services.
 
Jenny Hansen

________________________________________
From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:00 AM
To: ECRIT
Subject: [Ecrit] Comments on [draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-02.txt]
I reviewed this document from the perspective of an employee of a major
service provider. Nonetheless, these opinions are mine, as an individual.
I believe this is the right type of protocol to meet this need, and that it
is progressing well. I've been following the discussion of issues, and am
satisfied that the right issues are being discussed and properly addressed.
I have no specific comments on the actual text.
I would like to see some other industry bodies (such as NENA in the US)
expand on "Civic Address Validation". I think the level of detail in this
document is appropriate, but that for validation to really work, national
bodies need to specify more detailed validation rules, consistent with how
location information is managed and used in their country. For example, when
ZIP Code and city name are both "valid", but do not match, which is
considered invalid? Is the street name used as a tie breaker (street name is
valid in ZIP code, but not city)? This might be useful work to suggest at
the next SDO meeting.
Barbara Stark
BellSouth Science & Technology (a recently acquired part of AT&T) 
*****
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use
of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all
computers. GA623