1. Henning Schulzrinne Hannes Tschofenig
Synchronizing Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Protocol based Service Boundaries and Mapping Elements draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-03.txt
Henning Schulzrinne
Hannes Tschofenig

2. Main Use Case
Sync Mappings
Forest Guide
Alice
Forest Guide
Bob

3. Pull - Functionality getMappingsRequest getMappingsResponse
Forest Guide
Alice
Forest Guide
Bob
Bob wants the data in this example

4. Push - Functionality pushMappingsResponse pushMappingsRequest
Forest Guide
Alice
Forest Guide
Bob
Bob wants the data in this example

5. getMappingsRequest
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <getMappingsRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"/>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<getMappingsRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1">
<exists>
<mapping-fingerprint source="authoritative.bar.example"
sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb c9a66"
lastUpdated=" T01:00:00Z">
</mapping-fingerprint>
</exists>
</getMappingsRequest>

6. pushMappingsRequest <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<sync:pushMappingsRequest
xmlns:sync="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lost1"
xmlns:p2="
<mapping source="authoritative.example" ……

7. getMappingsRequest, cont.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<getMappingsRequest xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:lostsync1">
<query>
<scope source="authoritative.bar.example"/>
</query>
</getMappingsRequest>

8. Next Steps Did we address the WGLC feedback appropriately?
Is there a way to make the protocol simpler?
Does the document need to be “Standards Track”?