Agenda

Antitrust Policy

• Approve previous meeting minutes

  • Approved ? yes

• Open issues and PRs

Minutes

Spring25 Meta-release

• Device Object Should Be Optional According to API Design Guidelines

  • PR #298: Set Device Object To Optional - According to API Design Guidelines

  • Needs to be sync’d with main and can be merged

  • @Maximilian.Laue to sync PR and merge

• Missing error 422 with code MISSING_IDENTIFIER in Geofencing Subscriptions API

  • Add to PR #298 or create a new one after merging the other

  • @Maximilian.Laue to do the PR. Others to review asap

• Missing error 422 with code LOCATION_RETRIEVAL.UNABLE_TO_FULFILL_MAX_SURFACE

  • PR: Add LOCATION_RETRIEVAL.UNABLE_TO_FULFILL_MAX_SURFACE error

  • Merged!

• location-verification: Align test plan with spec errors

  • PR: Location verification align error tests

  • Question about behaviour when device is not found. In location-retrieval we have a 404 DEVICE_NOT_FOUND while location-verification returns 200 UNKNOWN

  • @Joachim Dahlgren to open an issue for this: https://github.com/camaraproject/DeviceLocation/issues/308

    • We may create a new error 404 LOCATION_VERIFICATION.DEVICE_NOT_FOUND

• location-Retrieval: Align test plan with spec errors

  • @Ludovic Robert to create a PR. Please others review asap

  • We may need to align Geofencing as well (the others are initial so this is more critical to be aligned)

    • @Maximilian.Laue to consider it

• Align Geofencing-subscriptions on Commonalities r2.3

  • To be done. @Maximilian.Laue

  • Any change to be applied to location-verification or location-retrieval?

    • It should only be for APIs with subscriptions, so no

• Test statement needed for stable API location-verification v2.0.0

  • Thanks to DT

• Release PR for Spring25 M4 milestone

  • To be done by Feb 28th

  • All other pending PRs to be merged first

Pending

• Enhancement Request: Add IMEI as a Device Identifier for Location Retrieval API

  • New comments challenging the requirement

Backlog

• issue 133 - Define guidelines for geofencing implementation

  • New interactions

• Discuss data minimization for geofencing event

  • Review status in Commonalities

  • Aligned with r2.2 but more future discussion on the topic is expected, so we keep the issue open

• [Geofencing] Support for polygon area type

  • Moved to backlog

  • Ilya to continue working on the proposal

Action items