RFC 6739: Synchronizing Service Boundaries and <mapping> Elements Based on the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
The Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) protocol is an XML-based protocol for mapping service identifiers and geodetic or civic location information to service URIs and service boundaries. In particular, it can be used to determine the location-appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for emergency services. The <mapping> element in the LoST protocol specification encapsulates information about service boundaries and circumscribes the region within which all locations map to the same service Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) or set of URIs for a given service. This document defines an XML protocol to exchange these mappings between two nodes. This mechanism is designed for the exchange of authoritative <mapping> elements between two entities. Exchanging cached <mapping> elements, i.e., non-authoritative elements, is possible but not envisioned. Even though the <mapping> element format is reused from the LoST specification, the mechanism in this document can be used without the LoST protocol. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6739
- Published
- October 2012
- Authors
- H. Schulzrinne; H. Tschofenig
- Status
- EXPERIMENTAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- art
- Pages
- 25
- Also known as
- —
- Updated by:
- RFC 8996
Topics
Referenced by
One later RFC formally updates or obsoletes part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 5964Specifying Holes in Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Service BoundariesCurrent
August 2010
- RFC 7840A Routing Request Extension for the HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) ProtocolCurrent
May 2016
- RFC 8606ISDN User Part (ISUP) Cause Location Parameter for the SIP Reason Header FieldCurrent
June 2019
- RFC 8787Location Source Parameter for the SIP Geolocation Header FieldCurrent
May 2020
- 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 6451Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol ExtensionsCurrent
December 2011
- RFC 6447Filtering Location Notifications in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)Current
January 2012
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?