Repository navigation
Proposal: CAMARA Location APIs Functional Differences Whitepaper #412
Description
Summary
Following the discussion in TSC, the understanding is that each Sub Project can decide whether and when to pick up possible whitepaper-related topics, with the current priority remaining Sync26.
Based on that, I' opening this issue to check whether the Device Location Sub Project sees value in a future API-consumer-facing whitepaper explaining the functional differences between the main Device Location APIs:
- Location Retrieval
- Location Verification
- Geofencing Subscriptions
The goal would be to help API consumers understand when to use each API and how they differ functionally. You can see an example here from CAMARA last whitepaper.
Request
This issue is only intended to confirm whether the topic and scope make sense from the Device Location repository perspective. No immediate drafting, review, API change, semantic change, or Sync26-related action is expected from maintainers. If the group sees value in the topic, it can be picked up after the current release priorities, at the pace decided by the Sub Project.
Questions
- Does the group see value in this topic from an API-consumer perspective?
- Is the proposed scope correct?
- Should any API be added or explicitly excluded?
- Are there semantic differences, limitations, or edge cases that should be captured if this topic is eventually drafted?
CC: @camaraproject/marketing_codeowners, @camaraproject/marketing_maintainers, @camaraproject/device-location_codeowners, @camaraproject/device-location_maintainers
Activity
bigludo7 commentedon Jun 29, 2026
Hello Alberto,
The 3 APIs are easy to explain but having a WP or a FAQ will be always helpful.
I'm wondering if we shouldn't extend the white paper to location based API like Region Device Count and in a larger extend Population Density Data.
We have for a long time a discussion about the accuracy for the geofencing API - indeed depending on the operator rule the behavious can be different (reduce the chance the miss a device inside the zone but increase chance to false notif vs reduce false notif but increase chance to miss real "intrusion") - we haven't be able to find a common rule here. Ir should probably listed as limitation.
albertoramosmonagas commentedon Jun 29, 2026
Hi @bigludo7,
It would just be a matter of seeing if it makes sense to propose a similar activity in these groups.