Ok, thanks, Scott. I did read the writeup, but interpreted it to mean that we still needed a full schema review. Sorry for the misinterpretation.
Barry On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 5:34 AM Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Barry Leiba <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 11:44 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: regext <[email protected]> > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] AD review of draft-ietf-regext-dnrd-objects-mapping- > > 05 > > > > Again, I’m sorry I didn’t get to this sooner. Here’s my review. I have > some > > items that I want to resolve (some of which might need some > > discussion) before this goes to last call, and I’m putting those first. > > [snip] > > > — Section 9 — > > A note that I did not review the schemas, as I am not a schema expert. > > I am concerned that I have not seen evidence yet that a schema expert has > > given this a good look. > > Barry, I noted the schema review situation in the shepherd write-up. I > checked it, and I worked with the author to run it and the examples through > a series of automated checks using the xerces XML parser. It's > syntactically correct and valid as far as I can determine. > > Scott >
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
