Maybe I’m missing something, but this draft is about validating contacts, so I
don't see an issue in referring to the contact RFC. There’s no point in
validating contacts, but not creating them, so the client needs to support the
contact xsd anyway.
Regardless of that, I’m still trying to figure out the use of this extension.
Will a client first check whether a contact can be created, then interpret the
response of the check, and finally create the command. Or will the client just
try to create the contact, and in case of error interpret the error message?
Maybe there’s a need for better, more structured and machine interpretable
responses, but I don’t think the extra check step is the way to go. Just my 2
cents…
Kind regards
--
Pieter Vandepitte
Product Expert
+32 16 28 49 70
www.dnsbelgium.be
On 06/06/18 14:22, "regext on behalf of Gould, James" <regext-boun...@ietf.org
on behalf of jgould=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
Patrick,
The base EPP protocol is defined using epp and eppcom, where extensions
(object or command / response) would naturally be dependent on the base
schemas. Creating dependencies across extensions does not allow them to stand
on their own, so my preference would be to copy and paste the elements from
sibling extension XML schemas unless there is a large advantage with creating
the dependency. There are examples of cross extension dependencies that exist
today, like the inclusion of the host XML schema within the domain XML schema
of RFC 5731. This dependency does require ensuring that the host XML schema is
loaded ahead of the domain XML schema when pre-caching the XML schemas. The
contact reference in the validate extension takes it one step further by
referencing complex types that requires the use of the contact namespace
directly within the XML, so it's more than just ensuring that the contact XML
schema is loaded ahead of the validate XML schema. It is not hard to overcome,
but I believe the priority should be to have the extensions stand on their own
and only be dependent on the base XML schemas of epp and eppcom unless there is
an overriding reason to add the cross-extension dependency.
—
JG
James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
On 6/5/18, 8:09 PM, "regext on behalf of Patrick Mevzek"
<regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of p...@dotandco.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018, at 19:56, Gould, James wrote:
> 4. I don’t recommend directly referencing the
> urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.0 elements, since it adds a direct
> dependency to inclusion of the contact XML schema and namespace for a
> subset of the elements that are really specific to the validate
mapping.
> I would prefer for the validate XML schema to stand on its own by
only
> referring to epp and eppcom, with no cross references to contact.
This
> would mean copying and pasting elements directly from the contact XML
> schema into the validate XML schema, which is an inconvenient, but
makes
> it easier to implement.
I am sure that not all elements of epp/eppcom namespaces are used
either so under symmetry and consistency I would find more logical that all
schemas are treated the same, either all referenced, or all copied (for the
parts needed).
And I see no problems in referencing the contact-1.0 one.
Using epp/eppcom as references already make the schema dependent on
other resources and not "standing on its own".
I am not sure this has a huge consequence on implementations,
especially if taking into account multiple ways to implement things (and
especially doing validation or not).
--
Patrick Mevzek
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
