The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9167, "Registry Maintenance Notification for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)"
-------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://errata.rfc-editor.org/eid9189/ -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Tobias Sattler <[email protected]> Section 3.3 says: Original Text ------------- <maint:tlds> The OPTIONAL <maint:tlds> element contains one or more <maint:tld> child elements. If the <maint:tlds> is not present, the entire system is affected. <maint:tld> The affected top-level domain or registry zone, which SHALL be in A-label form, according to [RFC5891]. <maint:intervention> The OPTIONAL <maint:intervention> element contains the following child elements: <maint:connection> The value SHALL be boolean and indicates if a client needs to perform a connection-related action such as a reconnect. The attribute should only be used as a flag to indicate connections will be affected. Servers SHOULD include a description of how the connections are affected in the <maint:description> element or use the <maint:detail> element above. <maint:implementation> The value SHALL be boolean and indicates if a client needs to perform an implementation-related action such as a code change. The attribute should only be used as a flag to indicate implementation will be affected. Servers SHOULD include a description of how the implementation is affected in the <maint:description> element or use the <maint:detail> element above. <maint:crDate> The date and time of the maintenance object creation. <maint:upDate> The OPTIONAL date and time of the most recent maintenance object modification. This element MUST NOT be present if the maintenance object has never been modified. Corrected Text -------------- <maint:tlds> The OPTIONAL <maint:tlds> element contains one or more <maint:tld> child elements. If the <maint:tlds> is not present, the entire system is affected. <maint:tld> The affected top-level domain or registry zone, which SHALL be in A-label form, according to [RFC5891]. <maint:intervention> The OPTIONAL <maint:intervention> element contains the following child elements: <maint:connection> The value SHALL be boolean and indicates if a client needs to perform a connection-related action such as a reconnect. The element should only be used as a flag to indicate connections will be affected. Servers SHOULD include a description of how the connections are affected in the <maint:description> element or use the <maint:detail> element above. <maint:implementation> The value SHALL be boolean and indicates if a client needs to perform an implementation-related action such as a code change. The element should only be used as a flag to indicate implementation will be affected. Servers SHOULD include a description of how the implementation is affected in the <maint:description> element or use the <maint:detail> element above. <maint:crDate> The date and time of the maintenance object creation. <maint:upDate> The OPTIONAL date and time of the most recent maintenance object modification. This element MUST NOT be present if the maintenance object has never been modified. Notes ----- The canonical XML source contains an empty <dt/> (section-3.3-4.15) followed by a nested <dl> (section-3.3-4.16.1). All renderings therefore place <maint:intervention>, <maint:crDate> and <maint:upDate> one level too deep, so they read as child elements of <maint:tlds>. The schema in Section 5.1 (maintDataType) and all examples in Sections 4.1.1.1 and 4.1.2 define them as child elements of <maint:item>, on the same level as <maint:tlds>. The corrected text moves them to that level and removes the empty entry. In addition, <maint:connection> and <maint:implementation> are elements (interventionType in Section 5.1), not attributes, so "attribute" is replaced by "element" in both descriptions. The wording is otherwise unchanged and only re-wrapped to the new indentation. As a co-author, I confirm that the corrected structure is the intended one. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". Please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC9167 (draft-ietf-regext-epp-registry-maintenance) -------------------------------------- Title : Registry Maintenance Notification for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Publication Date : December 2021 Author(s) : T. Sattler, R. Carney, J. Kolker Category : Proposed Standard Source : regext (ops) Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
