On Mon, Apr 8, 2019, at 08:23, Gould, James wrote: > JG – The <loginSec:client> element can be changed to the <loginSec:app> > element. To remove confusion for “lang”, how about changing the > <loginSec:lang> element to the <loginSec:tech> element. The description > of the app, tech, and os elements would encourage the inclusion of the > version. The following is the proposed description of the elements: > > <loginSec:app>: OPTIONAL name of the client application software with > version if available, such as the name of the client SDK "EPP SDK > 1.0.0". > > <loginSec:tech>: OPTIONAL technology used for the client software with > version if available, such as "Java 11.0.2".
Please do not use "tech". Some EPP extensions already uses tech, albeit in a "contact" related namespace, that is they have <contact:tech>FOOBAR</contact:tech> instead of this other form that some may prefer: <domain:contact type="tech">FOOBAR</domain:contact> So this falls in the kind of same problem of (non technical but possible confusing) collision. And more generally, "tech" is too short to convey enough meaning just by itself. In general I also fail to see what we gain by using short names. Why not application, technology and operationSystem if you want all those details? -- Patrick Mevzek [email protected] _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
