%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-09 instead of this revision.
@techreport{ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-05,
    number =    {draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-planned-changes-05},
    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/05/},
    author =    {Brian Rosen},
    title =     {{Validation of Locations Around a Planned Change}},
    pagetotal = 21,
    year =      2021,
    month =     oct,
    day =       11,
    abstract =  {This document defines an extension to the Location to Service Translation (LoST) protocol (RFC5222) that allows planned changes to the data to be handled smoothly. This extension is only useful with the validation function of LoST. It is beneficial for LoST validation clients to be aware of planned changes, as records that previously were valid may become invalid at a known future date, and new locations may become valid after the date. This extension adds an element to the \textless{}findService\textgreater{} request: a date that allows the LoST client to request that the server perform validation as of the date specified. It adds an optional Time-To-Live element to the response, which informs clients of the current expected lifetime of a validation. It also adds a separate interface to the LoST server that allows a client to poll for planned changes. Additionally, this document provides a conventional XML schema for LoST, as a backwards compatible alternative to the RelaxNG schema in RFC5222.},
}