Re: [Ecrit] Does anyone support Planned-Changed?

Schema conundrum aside, I support moving the draft forward.

Best regards,
*James Kinney*

*Chief Innovation Officer | INdigital *

*direct: 260.469.2132*

*email: *jkinney@indigital.net

*main office: *877.469.2010

*website: *indigital.net

*address: *1616 Directors Row, Fort Wayne, IN 46808

*join us online:* Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/INdigital911/> |
Twitter <http://twitter.com/indigital> | Linkedin
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/indigital911>

CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this transmission is
privileged and confidential. It is intended to be received by the
individual or entity named above. If the reader or this message is not the
intended recipient, the reader is hereby notified that any consideration,
dissemination, or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited.
This email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged.
If received in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone, notify
the sender by return email, and delete this email and any attachments from
your system.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 1:12 PM Brian Rosen <br=
40brianrosen.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> I will expand LIS, and change entry points to end points.  I’ll add the
> reference to Section 8.
>
> WRT to the XML schema:  we now have quite a bit of deployment experience
> with LoST.  No one (and I mean NO ONE) uses the RelaxNG schema.  They use
> an xml schema, normally one that NENA created because no one in NENA had
> ever used RelaxNG.
> I based the schema in the draft on the NENA schema.
>
> I would be very happy to obsolete the RelaxNG schema and replace it with
> the XML Schema.  That would avoid the necessity to maintain both in future
> extensions.  That would mean that this draft updates a few other RFCs that
> have LoST RelaxNG schemas.
>
> We did have discussions long ago about where to make the change to XML
> Schemas, and this was the draft we decided to do it in.  I would not want
> to split the draft at this point.
>
> I did engage an expert (Peter Saint Andre)  to verify that the XML Schema
> matched the RelaxNG schema.  He helped me fix several errors I made.  I’m
> pretty confident they are the same, but there is no tool that could
> validate it.
>
> Brian
>
> On Sep 8, 2023, at 10:24 AM, hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net wrote:
>
> Resending
>
> *From:* hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
> *Sent:* Freitag, 8. September 2023 14:55
> *To:* 'Randall Gellens' <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>; 'ECRIT' <
> ecrit@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [Ecrit] Does anyone support Planned-Changed?
>
> Hi Randy,
>
> I have read the document and I believe it is a useful and important
> extension.
>
> Here are my high-level comments.
>
> 1. On the editorial side, please expand LIS when first used.
>
> 2. Section 3 talks about "entry points" in context of the new RESTful
> APIs. The correct terminolgy would, however, be "endpoints". The
> description of the API in that section is incomplete. A reference to
> section 8 would be appropriate, which uses the OpenAPI functionality (which
> I am not familiar with).
>
> 3. The more substantive comment concerns the introduction of the XML
> schema for LoST. Since the title does not indicate the presence of this
> description in the document it is a bit surprising. I was wondering why you
> didn't just produce a new draft that contains the XML schema where the
> title clearly indicates it.
>
> There is one annoying consequence: if you introduce two schema languages
> for LoST, namely RelaxNG and the XML schema, then every extension going
> forward should actually specify the extension in both schema languages to
> deal with the installed base.
>
> FWIW I have not checked the XML schema against the Relax NG schema and
> validated the examples against this new schema. I hope Brian did it. It
> would be unfortunate if the newly proposed XML schema is not in sync with
> the previously published functionalty or even buggy.
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>
>
> *From:* Ecrit <ecrit-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Randall Gellens
> *Sent:* Mittwoch, 30. August 2023 18:39
> *To:* ECRIT <ecrit@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* [Ecrit] Does anyone support Planned-Changed?
>
> Members of IETF ECRIT WG:
> The two-week IETF WG Last Call on the Planned Changes drat closes *TODAY*.
> Supposedly, this is a document that NENA i3 needs and has been waiting on.
> To date the IETF ECRIT mailing list has received exactly *ZERO* comments
> on the draft during this WG last call. The logical conclusion is that no
> one cares about the draft and it should die. Is that accurate? Or is it
> just that everyone is still on August break/doldrums? I need to know.
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes/
> There is also an HTML version available at:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-08.html
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-08
> --Randall
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> Ecrit@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>