Greetings, If you have checked the IANA EPP Extension Registry recently you may have noticed two extensions I submitted:
1. Related Objects (specification URL: https://gavinbrown.xyz/epp-related-objects-extension/) 2. Command Reversal (specification URL: https://gavinbrown.xyz/epp-reverse-extension/) Since I am the "primary" reviewer for this registry I asked IANA to forward my requests to the secondaries. My thanks to them for their speedy reviews. I presented both of these documents to regext several years ago, but neither received enough interest for me to request WG adoption. Rather than having them languish in obscurity in my GitHub account, I decided to polish up the specs and submit them to the registry in the hope that they might be found useful and see some adoption. Both specifications are licensed under the "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International" license. These registrations were submitted in my personal capacity (hence the use of my personal email address and domain), and have nothing to do with my current employer. My interest in EPP predates my current role and may well survive it too! The DEs had some comments/questions that I think are best discussed on this mailing list, so I have answered them below. > Nit: In section 1.1 it says "EPP uses XML namespaces to provide an > extensible object management framework and to identify schemas…” (looks good) > and then in 5.1 "This document uses URIs to describe XML namespaces and XML > schemas…”. “describe” is wrong? Or is there a suggestion that the namespace > URIs can/should be used to retrieve schemas? This is standard cant that appears in practically every EPP-related RFC since 3730, although I used "URI" instead of "URN"; however the two acronyms have the same function (a URN is also a URI) in the text. I do not suggest that the URIs should be used to retrieve schemas; that's what the IETF XML Registry is for. > I note that the namespace URIs in the draft, e.g. > https://gavinbrown.xyz/xmlns/epp/related-objects-1 are based on the > gavinbrown.xyz domain name, and also that there’s nothing there. Are either > of those problems? No, neither is a problem. The URIs used to identify namespaces in XML are opaque to XML and have no intrinsic meaning: there doesn't need to be anything published at the URI in order for it to work as an XML namespace identifier. The domain is one I control and is a place where I publish other things, so that's what I used. There are other entries in the registry which use namespace URIs with the http: scheme at which nothing is published, so this is not unusual or unexpected. I have now set up a 404 page at https://gavinbrown.xyz/xmlns that explains this :) > My xml schema is rusty, but I don’t remember namespace=“#other” being valid > for an element that is defined in the current namespace (infData). This is correct, the schema was wrong and has been fixed. I will ask IANA to update the XSD in the IETF XML Registry. The GitHub repository (linked to from the spec) now includes tests that are run prior to publication of a new version of the spec. They will pick up any future errors. > I think the namespace being rooted at gavinbrown.xyz is troubling, but it > doesn’t strictly violate any rules that I can think of. I have no wish to cause any concern, but I think I need more information to understand the problem before I can address it. Thanks, Gavin. _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
