RFC 6197: Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Service List Boundary Extension
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) maps service identifiers and location information to service contact URIs. If a LoST client wants to discover available services for a particular location, it will perform a <listServicesByLocation> query to the LoST server. However, the LoST server, in its response, does not provide context information; that is, it does not provide any additional information about the geographical region within which the returned list of services is considered valid. Therefore, this document defines a Service List Boundary that returns a local context along with the list of services returned, in order to assist the client in not missing a change in available services when moving. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6197
- Published
- April 2011
- Authors
- K. Wolf
- Status
- EXPERIMENTAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- art
- Pages
- 15
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 6190RTP Payload Format for Scalable Video CodingCurrent
May 2011
- RFC 6216Example Call Flows Using Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Security MechanismsCurrent
April 2011
- RFC 6223Indication of Support for Keep-AliveCurrent
April 2011
- RFC 6228Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Response Code for Indication of Terminated DialogCurrent
May 2011
- RFC 6236Negotiation of Generic Image Attributes in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)Current
May 2011
- RFC 6141Re-INVITE and Target-Refresh Request Handling in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)Current
March 2011
- RFC 6262RTP Payload Format for IP-MR Speech CodecCurrent
August 2011
- RFC 6122Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Address FormatObsoleted
March 2011
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?