2024-05-21 Device Location - Meeting Minutes

Owned by Jose Luis Urien Pinedo
Last updated: Jun 04, 2024
4 min read

Date

May 21, 2024

Attendees & Representation

Type @ and your name to indicate your attendance

Community: @Jose Luis Urien Pinedo @Joachim Dahlgren @Akos Hunyadi @Cetin Alpaycetin @Fernando Prado Cabrillo @Javier Carro @Rafal Artych 

Agenda

Minutes

Overall topics

New

  • Issue: [Geofencing] Support for polygon area type

    • PR: Polygon area type added

    • Discussion:

      • Makes sense from a dev perspective but makes implementation more complicated

      • Possibly we may need this as well for Location Verification, but not necessarily

      • Align schemas with Location retrieval and Population Density in case we accept PR. In the future it would make sense to move it to Common artifacts. 

      • Decision: Keep issue open and discuss there

  • Issue: [Location-Retrieval]: add POINT as possible Location response

    • Some comments on the issue. Minimum right now is a CIRCLE with radius=1m, Is it not enough?

    • Discussion:

      • Having the radius as 1 does not seem like a practical problem since even GPS often have a few meters of error margin

      • From a documentation perspective clients might think that using a point the precision will be high, which is not the case

      • We don't have use cases for precision lower than 1 meter

      • Decision: Keep the discussion open. Using circle with 1m radius as points seems enough

    • Related with location-verification:

      • Javier asks if the WG is open to lower the 2km minumum of radius for CIRCLE location-verification

      • There were issues open regarding this topic in the past where several problems and discussions raised

      • Javier will open a new issue to continue the discussion

Ongoing

Test plans

  • Dedicated Commonalities workshop

    • New Commonalities PR: Enhance API-Testing-Guidelines.md

    • Once new guidelines and consensuated, all test plans will need to be updated

    • For this meta-release it is still not mandatory to have the completed test plans, but the more we have advanced, the better

  • PR: Geofencing feature file

    • Discuss licensing header

      • To be aligned in Commonalities as not sure we have ruling for this.

      • (Meeting Action) Akos will check internally → Feedback?

Other

  • APIs error alignment

    • @Rafal Artych has prepared a confluence page with Http Errors in different APIs and a comparision with the CAMARA_common.yaml to check differences and misalignments so we can adapt the guidelines: Error response guidelines

    • Regarding this topic @Fernando Prado Cabrillo created a PR to fix some of this misalignments: https://github.com/camaraproject/Commonalities/pull/174

    • (Meeting Action) : Chapter 6 of the Commonalities design document need to be review. @Jose Luis Urien Pinedo will check with Pedro Diez Garcia for that.

Waiting for Commonalities outcome, still open there

Review status of the following issues, agenda copied from last meeting minutes (except text in italic)

On hold discussions

Implementation

Define guidelines for geofencing implementation

  • We need more comments from the team

  • Connected with Issue #85. A document with implementation guideline should cover this also.

    • As requested by Joachim, issue #85 will remain open until TEF uploads the document with more detail or the information is added to an API_documentation file to keep in the repo for future references.

      • Joachim: Should be also aligned/synchronized with Geofencing

  • On issue #133 we probably need to have a base agreement for Geofencing guidelines

    • Akos & José proposed some suggestion - in particular to improve the subscription to allow consumer to indicate the 'reliability' expected.

    • Ludovic also raised the point above UC where we are not able to send any notification.... and we need to inform the consumer.

Administrative Code Area

 

AOB

Action items