Thanks Jim, I will add some text to describe this attribute and look to add an example.
________________________________ From: Gould, James <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 10:15 AM To: Roger D Carney; '[email protected]' Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees Roger, In reviewing the latest draft, I notice the inclusion of the optional “standard” attribute in the commandType XSD type, with a default of “0”, that is not described in the text. Is there an intention to support the “standard” attribute in the <fee:command> element? Thanks, — JG [cid:[email protected]] James Gould Distinguished Engineer [email protected] 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/> From: regext <[email protected]> on behalf of Roger Carney <[email protected]> Date: Friday, January 26, 2018 at 10:35 AM To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees Thanks Scott, I will take a look at those sections From: regext <[email protected]> on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 9:15 AM To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: Re: [regext] WGLC: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees > -----Original Message----- > From: regext [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of James Galvin > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 9:39 AM > To: Registration Protocols Extensions <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] WGLC: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft- > ietf-regext-epp-fees > > The document editors have indicated that the following document is ready > for submission to the IESG to be considered for publication as a Proposed > Standard: > > Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-09 > > Please indicate your support for the publication of this document. I support publication of this document. I have only one multi-faceted comment: Section 8.1 includes instructions to IANA to register an XML namespace. This should be broken into two requests, with one used to register the namespace and a second request to register the Schema from Section 6.1. Section 6 of RFC 5732 is one example of the appropriate structure for the namespace and Schema registration requests. Since this is a Standards Track proposal, the IESG should be used as the registrant contact for both registration requests in Sections 8.1 and 8.2. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
