Interoperability isn't being changed. RFC 5222 allows LoST servers to refuse to perform location validation. Adding a tag just provides an optimization so that clients can avoid getting into a situation where the server they discovered refuses to do validation.
On 8 Mar 2020, at 13:22, Ben Campbell wrote:
(doffs shepherd hat)I agree with Pete. There’s more to a protocol than the on-the-wire bits. Anything important for interop to work should be considered part of the protocol. Discovery is an important part of that. Changing discovery to spread functions across different servers is a change to the protocol.Pete’s suggested fixes seem reasonable to me and relatively painless.Ben.On Mar 8, 2020, at 2:59 PM, Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Randy,
Section 3 of the document defines the operations that one must perform in order to use the tag. It explains how to go beyond what 5222 provides by defining which order to look up the servers and what to do depending on the results received. It changes the discovery procedure defined in 5222. The fact that it is backwards compatible and doesn't break 5222 implementations is good, but it doesn't make it any less a protocol. Indeed, if it is an "optimization" of an existing protocol, that makes it a protocol. I can't see any other way of describing section 3.
pr
On 8 Mar 2020, at 14:27, Randall Gellens wrote:Hi Pete,
I don't see this as a new protocol. It is a new service tag that is optional to use. Not using it won't break anything that wouldn't be broken without the tag being defined. Using it is an optimization. I see the draft as only adding a new tag, not defining a new protocol.
--Randall
On 7 Mar 2020, at 8:52, Pete Resnick via Datatracker wrote:Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Not Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-gellens-lost-validation-05
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2020-03-07
IETF LC End Date: 2020-03-31
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary:
Abstract, Scope, and Introduction do not accurately reflect the content of the
document, which is not simply a registration.
Major issues:
The Abstract and sections 1 & 2 (Scope and Introduction) indicate that this
document is simply an IANA registration of an S-NAPTR Application Service Tag.
However, section 3 is quite clearly new protocol, some of which changes how RFC
5222 implementations should operate if used in a particular context, and
section 4 lays out the backward compatibility of this new protocol with legacy
RFC 5222 implementations. There is the implication that the NENA i3 documents
will actually be the home of that protocol, but the current i3 document
referenced here does not do so, making this document the canonical statement of
the protocol operations necessary to implement the i3 architecture. That
doesn't seem appropriate for an Informational document that purports to simply
be a registration.
At the very least, the Abstract, Scope, and Intro would need to be updated to
reflect the actual contents of the document. I think things would be better
served by making this a Proposed Standard document so that it gets the
appropriate level of review. I understand from the Shepherd writeup that the
ECRIT WG doesn't have the energy to really work on this document. However, this
is a simple enough extension to the LoST protocol that I think it's
unproblematic to have it as an AD-sponsored standards track document.
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
