Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open ranges for 'z' parameter #527

Closed
iandruska-ibl opened this issue Mar 13, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #577
Closed

Open ranges for 'z' parameter #527

iandruska-ibl opened this issue Mar 13, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #577
Labels
API EDR V1.2 Non-breaking change for Version 1.2

Comments

@iandruska-ibl
Copy link
Collaborator

I wonder whether there is any reason why open ranges (e.g., ../850, ../..) are not specified for the z parameter?

It is an option for the datetime parameter (Statement F in https://docs.ogc.org/is/19-086r6/19-086r6.html#_3abf1496-c07a-41bd-9884-cd1eb5ce2dbf).

I think it is equally useful for the z parameter. It would make the datetime and z perfectly symmetrical too.

@chris-little
Copy link
Contributor

@iandruska-ibl Good suggestion. Do you think it increases the Denial of Service attack risk?

@iandruska-ibl
Copy link
Collaborator Author

iandruska-ibl commented Mar 13, 2024

@chris-little I think that security is irrelevant (at least to a great degree) at this level of abstraction. Security is a matter of implementation. Implementations are free include mechanisms to prevent attacks at specific EDR features. For example, to prevent DoS attacks, implementations might evaluate the size of a query and deny if it is too big. No need to restrict capabilities of API because of that in my opinion (BTW, DoS attacks are usually detected/prevented at a different architecture layer, e.g., load balancers, API gateways, web proxies, etc.).

@m-burgoyne
Copy link
Collaborator

@iandruska-ibl I agree that it makes sense for any of the query parameters which support a range input to follow the same rules.

@chris-little chris-little added the API EDR V1.2 Non-breaking change for Version 1.2 label Mar 27, 2024
@m-burgoyne m-burgoyne linked a pull request Sep 16, 2024 that will close this issue
@chris-little chris-little moved this from In progress (Assignees working on it) to To do (SWG agreed to add to project) in OGC API-EDR Part 1: Core, V1.2 Backward compatible functional changes Oct 3, 2024
@chris-little chris-little moved this from To do (SWG agreed to add to project) to Final Review (PR ready, no conflicts, reviewers requested) in OGC API-EDR Part 1: Core, V1.2 Backward compatible functional changes Oct 3, 2024
@chris-little chris-little moved this from Final Review (PR ready, no conflicts, reviewers requested) to Initial Review (agreed as feasible, reasonable, achievable, and assigned) in OGC API-EDR Part 1: Core, V1.2 Backward compatible functional changes Oct 3, 2024
@chris-little chris-little moved this from Initial Review (agreed as feasible, reasonable, achievable, and assigned) to Final Review (PR ready, no conflicts, reviewers requested) in OGC API-EDR Part 1: Core, V1.2 Backward compatible functional changes Oct 3, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
API EDR V1.2 Non-breaking change for Version 1.2
Projects
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants