Re: [Ecrit] planned-changes: two questions

["Caron, Guy" <[e-mail]>]

My thoughts Inline below.

Guy

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Ecrit <[e-mail]> De la part de Randall Gellens
Envoyé : 27 août 2021 17:41
À : ECRIT <[e-mail]>
Objet : [EXT][Ecrit] planned-changes: two questions

I think we're moving to a model where:
- In a query, a client can request to be notified when the location should be revalidated;
- In the response, the server provides an ID which the client associates with the location it just validated;
- The server sends a notification to the URI, containing the ID;
- The client revalidates each location with which that ID is associated.

Question 1: Does the server delete/inactivate the URI once it has sent the notification?
[GC] The URI is now a static one that is specific to a Client (rather than a location stored by the Client). I think it should remain active until the Client sends a new one (for whatever reason).

Question 2: Presumably, when the client revalidates the location(s), it will again request notification.
[GC] Yes, by providing <plannedChanges> with the same generic URI or a new one (for whatever reason).

  Does the server return the same ID as before, or a different ID?
[GC] It would be the same ID since it is associated with a location (defined by policy at the Server) unless the "location" has changed (the location itself or the policy defining it). An example of such change is when the underlying data structure for a set of locations has changed, such as address points being added on top of road centerline data. 

  A different ID could perhaps be useful in edge cases where the server didn't send or the client didn't get the notification, but any utility seems small.  If it's the same ID, then the answer to question 1 can be that the URI remains active until the client asks to no longer be notified (by sending an empty URI?).
[GC] You bring a good point about the Client asking to no longer be notified. I think this needs to be supported although I don't see why a Client supporting planned-changes would want to stop using it. Do we do so by providing an empty <plannedChanges>  or by not providing <plannedChanges> at all? In either case, we need some text on the Client and Server behaviours.

--Randall

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
External Email: Please use caution when opening links and attachments / Courriel externe: Soyez prudent avec les liens et documents joints