%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-09 instead of this revision.
@techreport{ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-03,
    number =    {draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-03},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes/03/},
    author =    {Brian Rosen},
    title =     {{Validation of Locations Around a Planned Change}},
    pagetotal = 17,
    year =      2019,
    month =     apr,
    day =       26,
    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 \textless{}findservice\textgreater{} 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},
}