Re: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-05

I gave this a good read today. Some notes—

  *   Throughout, changeSet should be camel case? It is an object and not a method or class. The OpenAPI markup is inconsistent with this also.
  *   Section 3: The text says “versions” is two integers separated by a period. But in OpenAPI it is an object with two integers. The text implies it is a string with a specific format.

I know this is re-litigating mostly settled stuff, but polling has scalability issues? I know that there is a relatively small amount of traffic since there is just polling to see if there have been changes, but in the future of the global community of LoST servers for emergency services there is I feel like there is an open potential vulnerability to poll the PlannedChangePoll interface to death, such as with malicious use of changeSetIds. Though in the emergency services space we do have things like a PKI to mitigate this and the RFC notes this as well as other security implications. I would really prefer a push mechanism, but for reasons already discussed, I can stand by the RFC as currently drafted with the polling interface.

Assuming correction of typos and other stylistic things as noted in the email thread, I support advancing this RFC.

Brandon Abley
Director of Technology
NENA: The 9-1-1 Association
babley@nena.org<mailto:babley@nena.org>
m: +1.202.618.4401

From: Ecrit <ecrit-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Brian Rosen
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 5:41 PM
To: Victor Burton <Victor.Burton@comtechtel.com>
Cc: ecrit@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-05

Yah. Typos, and I will fix them.
It’s certainly possible to use any combination of extensions.  They are independent though, and I don’t think it’s necessary or even wise to link them.

Brian

On Oct 26, 2021, at 5:20 PM, Victor Burton <Victor.Burton@comtechtel.com<mailto:Victor.Burton@comtechtel.com>> wrote:

3. Planned Change Poll Interface

… The client would poll omitting the changeSetId in the poll query, and it response, the
   server returns all the ChangeSets it knows about. …
Should it be?

… The client would poll omitting the changeSetId in the poll query, and in the response, the
   server returns all the ChangeSets it knows about. …
whoose TO whose

6. Replacement XML schema

exected TO expected

Curiosity Question:

Should draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-05 include a reference to draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-12 or vice versa? Is it necessary to acknowledge because I’m assuming, that it is allowed for a <findService> request for validation to include the parameters for date for the server to perform revalidation, as well for “complete location” and/or “similar location” to be include in the <findService> response.

Thanks,

Victor
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: This email, including attachments, may contain information which is confidential, proprietary, attorney-client privileged and / or controlled under U.S. export laws and regulations and may be restricted from disclosure by applicable State and Federal law. Nothing in this email shall create any legal binding agreement between the parties unless expressly stated herein and provided by an authorized representative of Comtech Telecommunications Corp. or its subsidiaries. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email and permanently delete all copies of the original email and any attached documentation from any computer or other media. _______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit@ietf.org<mailto:Ecrit@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit