Subject: [Ecrit] Validation of a missing element

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:33:35 -0400

Referring to RFC5222, Section 8.4.2, suppose you sent a civic without an A1 record, but all of the other elements you sent were "valid" (whatever that means with a missing A1).

Do we agree that the validation response can contain A1 invalid, even though the element wasn't in the location sent in the request?

Suppose in a particular LoST database, there was a requirement to validate down to BLD for at least some civic addresses.  If the query location was missing BLD, the response could have an invalid BLD, right?

The text could have been more clear about this, but it seems clear to me that we have to allow both of these.

Brian

---

From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:41:07 -0400

That seems sensible to me, "null" being an incorrect value.

Do you mean to suggest some action here?  A modification to some  
document?  An erratum?

--Richard

On Aug 24, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:

> Referring to RFC5222, Section 8.4.2, suppose you sent a civic  
> without an A1 record, but all of the other elements you sent were  
> "valid" (whatever that means with a missing A1).
>
> Do we agree that the validation response can contain A1 invalid,  
> even though the element wasn't in the location sent in the request?
>
> Suppose in a particular LoST database, there was a requirement to  
> validate down to BLD for at least some civic addresses.  If the  
> query location was missing BLD, the response could have an invalid  
> BLD, right?
>
> The text could have been more clear about this, but it seems clear  
> to me that we have to allow both of these.
>
> Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:06:54 -0400

I don't think it warrants an erratum, but perhaps if we ever did a -bis we could improve the wording.

Brian

On Aug 24, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:

> Do you mean to suggest some action here?  A modification to some document?  An erratum?
> 
> --Richard
> 
>

---

From: "Roger Marshall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:45:09 -0700

(I'm not sure if what's being asked is meant to be a general question,
or only applicable to A1 and BLD, since leaving off A3 might be more
consequential than leaving of A1 in this example.)

A sample query that Brian refers to without including A1 (e.g., Bavaria,
a national subdivision) might include something like:

         <country>DE</country>
         <A3>Munich</A3>
         <A6>Otto-Hahn-Ring</A6>
         <HNO>6</HNO>
         <PC>81675</PC>

And the suggestion (I think) is that the response comes back including
validation elements:

         <valid>country A3 A6 PC</valid>
         <invalid>A1</invalid>
         <unchecked>HNO</unchecked>

Rather than doing the above, which seems unexpected (how did the LoST
server know to insert A1 in the response?), isn't this what civic
profiles are for?  

I imagine that use of a civic profile could list which elements are
required.  If one or more required elements are not provided, then all
other (peer or child) elements are tagged as <invalid> or <unchecked>,
along with the appropriate error (see below).

5222 reads (doesn't it?) that if A1 is not included in the query, it
would not be included in the response.  I also don't think that a LoST
server could always determine which other child elements would be valid,
if A1 is not known.

Based on the existing RFC5222, I guess I'd expect to see as a response,
the following:

         <valid>country PC</valid> !-since these are not dependent on A1
         <unchecked>A3 A6 HNO</unchecked> !-since these may not be
definitive unless you know your in A1 (Bavaria)

In section 13.1, it also seems like one of the two following errors
would be useful:

   locationProfileUnrecognized
      None of the profiles in the request were recognized by the server
      (see Section 12).

   locationInvalid
      The geodetic or civic location in the request was invalid.  For
      example, the longitude or latitude values fall outside the
      acceptable ranges.

...or some new message that states that the special civic profile was
not matched, element for element.

If we're talking bis action, I'd rather see the return more like:

         <missing>A1</missing>
         <valid>country PC</valid>
         <unchecked>A3 A6 HNO</unchecked>

-roger marshall.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Brian Rosen
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 10:07 AM
To: Richard L. Barnes
Cc: ecrit
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Validation of a missing element

I don't think it warrants an erratum, but perhaps if we ever did a -bis
we could improve the wording.

Brian

document?  An erratum?
>> Referring to RFC5222, Section 8.4.2, suppose you sent a civic without
an A1 record, but all of the other elements you sent were "valid"
(whatever that means with a missing A1).
>> 
>> Do we agree that the validation response can contain A1 invalid, even
though the element wasn't in the location sent in the request?
>> Suppose in a particular LoST database, there was a requirement to
validate down to BLD for at least some civic addresses.  If the query
location was missing BLD, the response could have an invalid BLD, right?

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, any review, forwarding, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete it and all attachments from your computer and network.