> -----Original Message----- > From: Michelle Thangtamsatid via RT <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 6:42 PM > Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [IANA #1231867] expert review for draft-ietf-regext- > epp-eai (epp-extensions) > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content > is safe. > > Dear Scott (cc: regext WG), > > As the designated expert for the Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning > Protocol (EPP) registry, can you review the proposed registration in draft- > ietf-regext-epp-eai for us? Please see
[SAH] As noted by Tim Bray, There are a few minor issues: The request to register the XML namespace looks fine. With respect to Tim's comment: > Section 6.1 says > “ XML: None. Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification." > and then > " XML: See the "Formal Syntax" section of this document." > > Hmm, a namespace URI identifies an XML markup vocabulary, so "None" is a > little jarring. If there's no XML why the namespace? And it also feels > inconsistent with the second statement. Sections 3.2 and 4 of RFC 3688 provides some context for the first "XML: None" above. There is no XML to be stored in the IANA registry, hence the "None". There is no XML schema defined by this extension, so there is no need to register a schema. The " Registration request for the eai XML Schema" should be removed. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
