Re: [Ecrit] planned-changes: two questions

[Brian Rosen <[e-mail]>]

Okay, I think the three of us are converging,  Here is a restatement of your description:
1) In a validation query, a Client can request to be notified when the proffered LI should be revalidated, and provides a URI to send the notifications to;
2) In the validation response, the Server provides an ID that the Client associates with the LI it just validated.   The server may silently ignore repeated requests to store a URI where the test in 4 below fails.
3) Immediately thereafter, if the URI is new to the Server, the Server sends a ‘test’ notification to the URI, with an empty ID.
4) The recipient at the URI is expected to respond with the ID provided in step 2. If it does, the Server stores the URI for future notifications.  If it does not, the server ignores the request to store the URI. 
5) Some time after, the Server notifies the Client of an upcoming planned change by sending a notification to the successfully tested URI with the location ID;
6) The client revalidates each LI in its database that matches the ID as of the date of the planned change. If no ID matches, it is a no-op at the Client. Revalidations may also result in no-op at the Client.
7) LIs at the Client that are invalidated by the planned change are modified in its database to be valid (which probably mean another revalidation cycle) with an effective date set to <revalidateAsoF> value.
8) The Server may send ’test’ notifications to the URI without any ID as a form of “keep-alive”.  Any ID provided by the Server to the client may be used as the response to the test transaction


There has been a discussion of sending more than one ID in a transaction.  I think that is a decent idea, but I worry about how big that could be.  Either we put a hard limit in the text or have something in the response to the test transaction that specifies a size limit for that client.

Brian

> On Sep 7, 2021, at 8:31 PM, Caron, Guy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 1) In a validation query, a Client can request to be notified when the proffered LI should be revalidated, and provides a URI to send the notifications to;
> 2) In the validation response, the Server provides an ID that the Client associates with the LI it just validated;
> 3) Immediately thereafter, the Server sends a ‘test’ notification to the URI, without any ID;\
> [br[For every new ID?  Or just once?  I wanted this to be a one time registration.
> [GC] Just once per offered URI.
> 
> 
> 4) The recipient at the URI is expected to respond with the ID provided in step 2. If it does, the Server stores the URI for future notifications. If it does not, the Server [let’s pick one: reject silently the URI and block the Client permanently/provides a ‘uriNotStored’ warning response to the URI {not compatible with the current proposal to test outside of LoST}/reject silently the URI and block the Client temporarily/other?];
> [br]I don’t think an explicit failure is a problem.  The LoST server can limit retries if it needs to.
> [GC] Ok for HTTP failures but what I’m talking about is when it fails to return the ID, like in your DoS example.
>  
> 
> 
> 5) Some time after, the Server notifies the Client of an upcoming planned change by sending a notification to the successfully tested URI with the location ID;
> 6) The client revalidates each LI in its database that matches the ID as of the date of the planned change. If no ID matches, it is a no-op at the Client. Revalidations may also result in no-op at the Client.
> 7) LIs at the Client that are invalidated by the planned change are modified in its database to be valid (which probably mean another revalidation cycle) with an effective date set to <revalidateAsoF> value.
> [br]I wanted periodic keep alives.  How would that work?
> [GC] You mean at step 3? As I mentioned below, I was wondering about the necessity for periodic tests. If the group is convinced it is needed, the Server can simply redo step 3 and the Client can respond with one or many IDs it has from that Server.