[Standards] We need to extend XEP-0080. (XMPP and Next Generation 9-1-1 / i3 / geolocation)

Joe Hildebrand jhildebr at cisco.com
Mon Apr 2 22:29:04 UTC 2012

Just use PIDF-LO in the same way as XEP-80.  You don't *have* to write a XEP
if you don't want to.

If you want there to be a XEP, write a XEP; the bar to entry for that is
really low.

On 4/2/12 11:55 PM, "Corey Wysong" <cwysong at indigital.net> wrote:

> Hello,
> I am very interested in this discussion. I would also like to see XEP-0080
> be extended or a new "Advanced GEOLocation" XEP be written. It is very
> important that location is correct when using a 911 application on any
> device using XMPP.
> Thanks,
> Corey Wysong
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Mark Rejhon <markybox at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I think we need to make an extension to XEP-0080 to be sufficiently
>> complete enough for use with Emergency Service (9-1-1), which often require
>> handling of non-circular-shaped estimated location data.  (So this is more
>> advanced than the "circle estimate" you see on map apps on
>> smartphones).
>> According to this IETF draft
>> Emergency Services Functionality with the Extensible Messaging
>> and Presence Protocol (XMPP)
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tschofenig-ecrit-xmpp-es-00
>> --------
>>   Location Conveyance:
>>      The ability to convey a PIDF-LO and a location by reference in
>> SIP had been defined by [RFC6442].  For a single call there may be more
>> than one location object in a call.
>>   While there is a location extensions available in XMPP with XEP-0080 it
>> is not equivalent to the functionality listed above.  XEP-0080 offers a
>> different civic location format and geodetic location based on a reduced
>> set of loation shapes.  It uses an XML encoding and allows this information
>> to be conveyed in XMPP.  *A table with a mapping to the PIDF-LO semantic
>> is provided in XEP-0080 but unfortunately since the functionality is not
>> equivalent to the list presented above there will be a loss of
>> informationduring the lifecyle of location handling in most of the scenarios.
>> *
>> --------
>> Notice the phrase "a loss of information" -- unacceptable in the name of
>> public safety (i.e. lost in the forest or lost at sea)
>> And it will be getting much more complex, with i3 having much more complex
>> geolocation requirements. My contacts are starting to ask me about an XMPP
>> specification they can use.  Because of the migration to Next Generation
>> 9-1-1 and Texting-to-9-1-1 (some of which is already being trialled over
>> XMPP), there is potentially a lot of companies that are going to demand
>> this in the next few years, including one that I work with.   (Note, some
>> of it is done over SIP, but other trials go over XMPP as shown in the
>> diagrams in the IETF draft.
>> It would thus, be pertinent to extend XEP-0080 in the name of public
>> safety.
>> Alternatively, if this is overkill and makes XEP-0080 too complex, then a
>> separate "XEP-0XXX: Advanced Geolocation" should be made, which could be a
>> superset of XEP-0080 general purpose geolocation.
>> This is actual demand for an actual need.
>> Sincerely,
>> Mark Rejhon

Joe Hildebrand

More information about the Standards mailing list