[Ecrit] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-16.txt

[Dan Mongrain <[e-mail]>]

Shouldn't the header specify it updates RFC 5222? I know the text says as
much, but I strongly recommend it is normatively stated so RFC 5222 gets
tagged there is an update.

Dan


*Dan Mongrain, eng.*Principal Engineer,
VESTA Solutions
www.VESTAPublicSafety.com

*[image:
https://www.motorolasolutions.com/content/dam/msi/images/logos/corporate/msiemailsignature.png]*

*o*:  +1.819.931.2129
*m*: +1.613.558.0764
e:   [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
www.linkedin.com/in/DanMongrain

<https://batchat.motorolasolutions.com/home/ls/community/mic>


On Fri, May 8, 2026 at 11:04 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-16.txt is now
> available.
> It is a work item of the Emergency Context Resolution with Internet
> Technologies (ECRIT) WG of the IETF.
>
>    Title:   Validation of Locations Around a Planned Change
>    Author:  Brian Rosen
>    Name:    draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-16.txt
>    Pages:   21
>    Dates:   2026-05-08
>
> Abstract:
>
>    This document defines an extension to the Location to Service
>    Translation (LoST) protocol (RFC5222) that allows a LoST server to
>    notify a client of planned changes to location data.  This extension
>    is only useful with the validation function of LoST.  It is
>    beneficial for LoST validation clients to be aware of planned
>    changes, since at a known future date, previously valid records may
>    become invalid, and new records may become valid.  This extension
>    adds an element to the <findService> request to allow a LoST client
>    to request validation as of a specified date.  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 a 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 Internet-Draft is:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Decrit-2Dlost-2Dplanned-2Dchanges_&d=DwIGaQ&c=q3cDpHe1hF8lXU5EFjNM_C93KOmcBXCBnhee2v6PYlc&r=n9aaU9xSQM4-mK_yF4tJzi7SeOWS3tTUWut1BhcRBI5vMR5LUWrTKzC_1DF8wC_4&m=bc9w1CLcIh3qbLzgcCGJ7J1H2eEIIblBOPbgmf8VlZc2ALB5b-ikPy2t9nuAC8Hk&s=g6vWliUMut7atC6ulLcsSzW-pWOx1q5eG6Y7d9c9eXM&e=
>
> There is also an HTML version available at:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_archive_id_draft-2Dietf-2Decrit-2Dlost-2Dplanned-2Dchanges-2D16.html&d=DwIGaQ&c=q3cDpHe1hF8lXU5EFjNM_C93KOmcBXCBnhee2v6PYlc&r=n9aaU9xSQM4-mK_yF4tJzi7SeOWS3tTUWut1BhcRBI5vMR5LUWrTKzC_1DF8wC_4&m=bc9w1CLcIh3qbLzgcCGJ7J1H2eEIIblBOPbgmf8VlZc2ALB5b-ikPy2t9nuAC8Hk&s=lUBwfCXHIqQojr1-XJm1NQE7TIsmk_6g5wgtT3R3c_c&e=
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__author-2Dtools.ietf.org_iddiff-3Furl2-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Decrit-2Dlost-2Dplanned-2Dchanges-2D16&d=DwIGaQ&c=q3cDpHe1hF8lXU5EFjNM_C93KOmcBXCBnhee2v6PYlc&r=n9aaU9xSQM4-mK_yF4tJzi7SeOWS3tTUWut1BhcRBI5vMR5LUWrTKzC_1DF8wC_4&m=bc9w1CLcIh3qbLzgcCGJ7J1H2eEIIblBOPbgmf8VlZc2ALB5b-ikPy2t9nuAC8Hk&s=I6H9N9jYI87-niXzFbt4HUh_vglycqq0NaZVfrVgC74&e=
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>

-- 


*For more information on how and why we collect your personal 
information, please visit our Privacy Policy 
<https://www.motorolasolutions.com/en_us/about/privacy-policy.html?elqTrackId=8980d888905940e39a2613a7a3dcb0a7&elqaid=2786&elqat=2#privacystatement>.*