[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0255 (Location Query)

kael ka-el at laposte.net
Tue May 4 15:55:24 UTC 2010


On 05/04/2010 04:18 PM, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or to clarify an existing protocol?

Having a standard way to query geolocation servers is relevant and 
useful, and this XEP appears to be to XMPP what this draft 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery> 
is to HTTP.

> 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction and requirements?

Seems so.

> 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, why not?

I've started to write a component for this XEP and have some comments 
(some redundant with Dave's) :

- I'd suggest adding additional capability namespaces so that a client 
can determine the type of geolocation resolver a service provides, with 
for example services announcing :

'urn:xmpp:locationquery:0#bluetooth'
'urn:xmpp:locationquery:0#cell'
'urn:xmpp:locationquery:0#wifi'
  etc.

And a namespace for reverse geocoding (when a client requests an address 
based on geocoordinates) with for example 'urn:xmpp:locationquery:0#geo'

Also, having a category or type for service discovery could be useful ;


- I for one don't like the fact that the query namespace is not the same 
  than the response one. This breaks <iq/> namespace parallelism but 
it's not that much important ;


- The <publish/> element is more or less lost in the geo data. It also 
doesn't take into account the possibility of publishing geolocation to 
certain roster groups only.

So I'd suggest moving the <publish/> element (but where ?), or at least 
using a <publish-options/> element so that clients can specify roster 
groups for example. And the <publish/> element would be replaced with a 
new <publish-options/> field attribute like 'pubsub#on_behalf'.

> 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?

There's one regarding geolocation data privacy but it seems to be out of 
the scope of the XEP. However, there be could a simple mention of 
privacy best practices for such data.

> 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?

Perhaps it could be enhanced regarding PEP geolocation delegated 
publication which requires to manage the node affiliations.

-- 
kael




More information about the Standards mailing list