RFC 5222, "LoST: A Location-to-Service Translation Protocol", August 2008

Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6848, RFC 8917, RFC 9036

Errata ID: 4174
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Dan Banks
Date Reported: 2014-11-12
Verifier Name: Alissa Cooper
Date Verified: 2016-04-03

Section 15 & Apdx A says:

In section 15, the Exception pattern says (in part):
  locationProfileUnrecognized =
    element locationProfileUnrecognized {
      attribute unsupportedProfiles { xsd:NMTOKENS },
      basicException
    }

The corresponding section in Appendix A says:
       <define name="locationProfileUnrecognized">
         <element name="locationProfileUnrecognized">
           <attribute name="unsupportedProfiles">
             <data type="NMTOKENS"/>
           </attribute>
           <ref name="basicException"/>
         </element>
       </define>

It should say:

Section 15 should say:
  locationProfileUnrecognized =
    element locationProfileUnrecognized {
      basicException
    }

Appendix A should say:
       <define name="locationProfileUnrecognized">
         <element name="locationProfileUnrecognized">
           <ref name="basicException"/>
         </element>
       </define>

Notes:

The ‘unsupportedProfiles’ attribute is not referenced anywhere else in the text of the document; no instruction is given describing the use of this attribute. This, by itself, is problematic. However, based on the type, it seems reasonable that the intent may have been to list the location profiles which the server is unable to understand.

Consider the condition under which the ‘locationProfileUnrecognized’ error is returned (section 12.1):
8. If a server receives a request that only contains location
information using profiles it does not understand, the server
responds with a <locationProfileError>

If none of the locations include the optional ‘profile’ attribute, the server may not be able to identify any of the profiles and therefore would be incapable of returning a list of profile names. This is especially problematic considering that the ‘unsupportedProfiles’ attribute is required by the schema.

Even in cases where one or more locations include the profile attribute, the client already knows what profiles were used in the request, so returning a list of these profiles does not provide new information to the client.

At best, use of the ‘unsupportedProfiles’ attribute appears to be redundant; at worst, it is impossible. Therefore, the suggested course of action is to remove the attribute from the schema.

Report New Errata