[Ecrit] planned-changes: two questions

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Fri, 27 August 2021 21:41 UTC

Return-Path: <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DDE13A1B1C for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 14:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.891
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FORGED_RELAY_MUA_TO_MX=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wtq-LBS5HqP9 for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 14:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D5813A1B1A for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 14:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [99.111.97.181] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Fri, 27 Aug 2021 14:41:09 -0700
From: "Randall Gellens" <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
To: ECRIT <ecrit@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 14:41:09 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <A0FC259C-DF34-4496-9013-422006278DA6@randy.pensive.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/hhFEdEnu61j6DA87PxHk4j9L4Pk>
Subject: [Ecrit] planned-changes: two questions
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ecrit/>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 21:41:13 -0000

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?

Question 2: Presumably, when the client revalidates the location(s), it 
will again request notification.  Does the server return the same ID as 
before, or a different ID?  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?).

--Randall