Re: [Ecrit] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-05.txt

Because we don’t seem to have any consensus on how to decide notify vs polling, I have provided an -05 version with the polling interface.  Even though I personally prefer the notification mechanism in prior versions, I really want to get this done, I know we can make polling work, and if this gets us going, I’m okay.

This version includes most of the edits Randal suggested and other edits as requested.

The polling interface is described with OpenAPI 3.0, which our NENA participants are familiar with.  I included the same version mechanism we use in NENA interfaces.

Brian

> On Oct 11, 2021, at 1:51 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies WG of the IETF.
> 
>        Title           : Validation of Locations Around a Planned Change
>        Author          : Brian Rosen
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-05.txt
> 	Pages           : 21
> 	Date            : 2021-10-11
> 
> Abstract:
>   This document defines an extension to the Location to Service
>   Translation (LoST) protocol (RFC5222) that allows planned changes to
>   the data to be handled smoothly.  This extension is only useful with
>   the validation function of LoST.  It is beneficial for LoST
>   validation clients to be aware of planned changes, as records that
>   previously were valid may become invalid at a known future date, and
>   new locations may become valid after the date.  This extension adds
>   an element to the <findService> request: a date that allows the LoST
>   client to request that the server perform validation as of the date
>   specified.  It adds an optional Time-To-Live element to the response,
>   which informs clients of the current expected lifetime of a
>   validation.  It also adds a separate interface to the LoST server
>   that allows a client to poll for planned changes.  Additionally, this
>   document provides a conventional XML schema for LoST, as a backwards
>   compatible alternative to the RelaxNG schema in RFC5222.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes/
> 
> There is also an htmlized version available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-05
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-05
> 
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt