Re: [Ecrit] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-02.txt

It occurs to me that since this draft includes a new schema for LoST it probably ought to update 5222.  It doesn’t claim to do that.  Should it?

Brian

> On Oct 23, 2018, at 3:10 PM, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net> wrote:
> 
> I have refreshed this draft and think it is ready for publication.  Note that the biggest remaining item was finished in -01 which was the replacement XML schema for LoST, as well as an XML extension schema for this document.
> 
> Oh rats, I forgot to credit Peter St Andre for helping with the review of the schemas.  I will get that done before publication.
> 
> Brian
> 
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-02.txt
>> Date: October 23, 2018 at 3:08:09 PM EDT
>> To: <i-d-announce@ietf.org <mailto:i-d-announce@ietf.org>>
>> Cc: ecrit@ietf.org <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
>> Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>, ecrit@ietf.org <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
>> 
>> 
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies WG of the IETF.
>> 
>>        Title           : Validation of Locations Around a Planned Change
>>        Author          : Brian Rosen
>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-02.txt
>> 	Pages           : 17
>> 	Date            : 2018-10-23
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>   This document defines an extension to LoST (RFC5222) that allows a
>>   planned change to the data in the LoST server to occur.  Records that
>>   previously were valid will become invalid at a date in the future,
>>   and new locations will become valid after the date.  The extension
>>   adds two elements to the <findservice> request: A URI to be used to
>>   inform the LIS that previously valid locations will be invalid after
>>   the planned change date, and add a date which requests the server to
>>   perform validation as of the date specified.  It also adds an
>>   optional Time-To-Live element to the response, which informs clients
>>   about the current expected lifetime of the validation.  This document
>>   also provides a conventional XML schema for LoST, as backwards
>>   compatible alternative to the RelaxNG schema in RFC5222
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes/>
>> 
>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-02
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-02
>> 
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-02
>> 
>> 
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>> 
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> 