RFC 6451: Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol Extensions
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
An important class of location-based services answers the question, "What instances of this service are closest to me?" Examples include finding restaurants, gas stations, stores, automated teller machines, wireless access points (hot spots), or parking spaces. Currently, the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol only supports mapping locations to a single service based on service regions. This document describes an extension that allows queries of the type "N nearest", "within distance X", and "served by". This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6451
- Published
- December 2011
- Authors
- A. Forte; H. Schulzrinne
- Status
- EXPERIMENTAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 23
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 6447Filtering Location Notifications in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)Current
January 2012
- RFC 6739Synchronizing Service Boundaries and <mapping> Elements Based on the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) ProtocolUpdated
October 2012
- RFC 6753A Location Dereference Protocol Using HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)Current
October 2012
- RFC 6848Specifying Civic Address Extensions in the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)Current
January 2013
- RFC 5964Specifying Holes in Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Service BoundariesCurrent
August 2010
- RFC 5962Dynamic Extensions to the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)Current
September 2010
- RFC 7035Relative Location RepresentationCurrent
October 2013
- RFC 7105Using Device-Provided Location-Related Measurements in Location Configuration ProtocolsCurrent
January 2014
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?