[Ecrit] Resolving open issue in planned-changes
Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Thu, 03 February 2022 00:14 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 04BB83A0D5E for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:14:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 yOuunoquAXg8 for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:14:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C3443A0D5B for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:13:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [99.111.97.136] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:13:59 -0800
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
To: ECRIT <ecrit@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 16:13:57 -0800
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <1CA21AC2-3722-481C-9437-A83451B03BC0@randy.pensive.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_0805B13D-1DE3-4627-95DB-291DACE11F7C_="
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/i6pjscrIXflvqXWh_yHxYJcFtno>
Subject: [Ecrit] Resolving open issue in planned-changes
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: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 00:14:05 -0000
Regarding the planned-changes draft, notification vs polling is the primary open issue. The other issues that have been discussed are secondary and are different depending on which mechanism is selected. As the next step in measuring consensus, the chairs want to identify technical objections to either mechanism. An important part of reaching consensus is making sure that all technical objections have been given appropriate consideration. Below is a summary of the objections that I've identified from the email list and the Doodle poll. If I've missed anything or left out anything crucial, please let me know. --- **Doodle poll:** - URL: https://doodle.com/poll/3krg2xh2yk3iww8r?utm_source=poll&utm_medium=link - Technical objection to polling: Gunnar, Guy - Technical objection to notification: Dan Banks **Dan:** Asking a LoST server to store information in response to a query creates an undue burden and presents multiple opportunities for abuse. It is also impractical for a LoST server to make the necessary determinations to support notifications. **Gunnar:** Polling for rare events causes waste of resources. Planned-changes are expected to be rare per location. --- **Email:** **Objections to notification:** **Jeff Martin**: Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 20:08:44 +0000 Message-ID: <CO6PR09MB8600D17E58AECCC9E80C20889FD59@CO6PR09MB8600.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> Archive URL: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/ZUQK2J_iZQvEo99JZFw3qAWQ0tg/ "Asking a server to store and later user a client-provided uri opens the door for abuse by malicious actors." **Dan Banks**: Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 16:13:17 +0000 Message-ID: <DM5PR1701MB181841BF7E917A62D89BACD0A7D69@DM5PR1701MB1818.namprd17.prod.outlook.com> Archive URL: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/TRIHMZHi27yWKvJNbAh9hOCJcoc/ "I am opposed to asking LoST servers to store URIs as well. I believe it significantly overcomplicates the solution and is the biggest reason why I have not supported the planned changes draft." "Several years ago we implemented a mechanism to allow a LIS to know that it needs to revalidate." "Yes, the LIS has to poll the various LoST servers and ask if there have been any changes. That is a cheap operation to implement, and the practical difference between knowing the very instant a change is published versus finding out within a few minutes is not significant in any way." **Objections to polling**: **Brian Rosen**: Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2021 17:14:54 -0400 Message-Id: <68AD2A9E-FB9D-45B3-95CF-358C89D912CA@brianrosen.net> Archive URL: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/Q_DcEcRvkPLYjVXjkcwcpcVj5hY/ "sometimes, there is not a lot of planning. The advantage to the notification is that it works immediately." **Guy Caron**: Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 19:43:30 +0000 Message-ID: <e616f4832db442c7bcaf883aba634188@bell.ca> Archive URL: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/kke7q2UwZ2RoSxtkNAt3AFHAG44/ "...there is no filtering based on the Clients being made; every Client gets the list of all upcoming changes. Further, it is yet another interface to support on the Server while the current mechanism leverages an existing one." --- If I've left out anything crucial, or didn't accurately summarize your objection or omitted it, please let me know. --Randall
- [Ecrit] Resolving open issue in planned-changes Randall Gellens