Re: [regext] Picking XML namespaces

[Gould, James]

Martin,

Yes, there are Production systems in place that use this namespace.  Scoping 
the namespace at this stage would cause Production interoperability issues.  
Let me know if you need any additional information.

Thanks,

Jim

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 5, 2018, at 8:54 AM, Martin Thomson  wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 6:49 PM Gould, James  wrote:
>> The scoping of the namespace for changepoll does have a negative impact,
> 
> Hi James,
> 
> Can you substantiate this claim?  Understand that I am not familiar
> with the work here.

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] Picking XML namespaces

[Martin Thomson]

On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 6:49 PM Gould, James  wrote:
> The scoping of the namespace for changepoll does have a negative impact,

Hi James,

Can you substantiate this claim?  Understand that I am not familiar
with the work here.

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration and characters representation

[Patrick Mevzek]

On Sun, Nov 4, 2018, at 13:59, Jiankang Yao wrote:
>Your suggestion is very good.   RFC7997 is an informational RFC, and 
> shows a direction. 

Not just a direction but possible things right now.
Because other formats than text are possible now, like PDF.

>Because the popular form of RFC is TXT, the TXT can not display non 
> ASCII very well.

No, see RFC 7990 and 7995.

>I can use the natvie unicode characters in draft, but many readers 
> will not display it correctly.

The RFC cited says how things can be dealt with and the difference between
the txt and PDF format for example.

If someone has to deal with internationalization and hence is interested
by your document, I guess he knows how to deal with that and properly display 
characters.

>According to my current understanding,  U+ is still the proper 
> way to be easily understood by most readers.

I still feel your document to be difficult to read, just because of that.

Things like:
xn--fsq270a.example

are not easy, besides being invalid XML.
(I pity the document shepherd that will need to validate all XML
snippets, this can NOT be just copied and pasted in some validtor)

Which is exactly why the RFC7997 says that directly using the unicode characters
as is is permissible in examples.

>Many years ago, IETF EAI WG also discussed this related issue.
>I still do not see which rfc uses the natvie unicode characters 
> directly.

RFC8187 for one.

>If possilbe, I may suggest to add some texts in the draft, which says 
> "in future, the natvie unicode characters instead of U+ notation are 
> suggested to use in the document"

As outlined, it is not in the future (hence this sentence is not necessary),
you can do it today already with RFC7997 guidance.

If you do not want to do it, then I do not recommend adding such a sentence.
And if you want to do it (apply RFC 7997 guidance) then you do not need
this sentence either, but you can put one explaining that examples contains
unicode characters, as permissible by section such and such of RFC7997.

If your draft goes further in the process, I guess this issue will come again
at various last calls and reviews.

-- 
  Patrick Mevzek
  p...@dotandco.com

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

[regext] FW: ROW#8 - May 9th, 2019 - Bangkok, Thailand

[Hollenbeck, Scott]

FYI, folks!



Scott



From: regi...@googlegroups.com  On Behalf Of Nicoleta 
Munteanu
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2018 6:41 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regiops] ROW#8 - May 9th, 2019 - Bangkok, Thailand



8th Registration Operations Workshop (ROW#8) | May 9th, 2019 | Bangkok, Thailand



The ROW Program Committee is pleased to invite you to save the date for our 8th 
Registration Operations Workshop (ROW#8), scheduled to 
take place on the afternoon of Thursday, 9 May 2019, in Bangkok, Thailand at 
the Shangri-La hotel. The 
workshop will take place immediately after ICANN’s Global Domains Division 
(GDD) Industry Summit and prior to ICANN’s Domain Name System (DNS) Symposium, 
and the DNS Operations, Analysis, and Research Center (DNS-OARC).



The events will take place at the same venue, as follows:

•• GDD Industry Summit: Monday, 6 May – 
Thursday, 9 May 2019

•• ROW#8: Thursday, 9 May 2019, afternoon

•• ICANN DNS Symposium: Friday, 10 May – Saturday, 
11 May 2019

•• DNS OARC: Sunday, 12 May – Monday, 13 
May 2019

The workshop is a half-day event focused on, but not be limited to, technical 
aspects of real world experiences of implementing registration operations for 
the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) pilot and gTLD launches. Given the 
current positioning of the ROW, the Program Committee is welcoming any 
suggestions for the ROW#8 theme, discussion/presentation proposals or comments 
regarding a change in the format of the session to allow for a goal oriented 
workshops incorporating deliverables, decisions or proposed solutions to be 
adopted.



Discussions may take place on the 
regi...@googlegroups.com mailing list or by 
email at r...@viagenie.ca.



Visit http://regiops.net for additional event details, more information on the 
venue, and previous ROW events.



We look forward to seeing you in Bangkok!



ROW Program Committee



Stay tuned for further updates! Follow us on Twitter 
@ROW_by_Viagenie

ROW website: http://regiops.net

Contact us: r...@viagenie.ca

ROW mailing list: regi...@googlegroups.com 
(sign-up at: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/regiops/join)

Add us to your calendar:

(cross-posting to multiple lists - sorry for any duplicates)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Regiops" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 
regiops+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 
regi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/regiops/BN6PR12MB181046678BBEA9E2EF0830A9F8CE0%40BN6PR12MB1810.namprd12.prod.outlook.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Asia/Bangkok
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+064204
DTSTART:19200331T235956
TZNAME:GMT+7
TZOFFSETTO:+0700
RDATE:19200331T235956
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
TRANSP:OPAQUE
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Bangkok:20190509T18
UID:D31A34D1-64CE-47B1-9721-E60CAD4A5B02
DTSTAMP:20181030T044816Z
LOCATION:Shangri-La Hotel Bangkok\n89 Soi Wat Suan Plu\nBangkok\nBangrak
  10500
DESCRIPTION:8th Registration Operations Workshop 
URL;VALUE=URI:http://regiops.net
SEQUENCE:0
SUMMARY:ROW#8 event
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Bangkok:20190509T12
CREATED:20181030T044816Z
X-APPLE-STRUCTURED-LOCATION;VALUE=URI;X-ADDRESS=89 Soi Wat Suan Plu\\nBa
 ngkok\\nBangrak 10500;X-APPLE-RADIUS=705.8754637681765;X-TITLE=Shangri-L
 a Hotel Bangkok:geo:13.721579,100.514211
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-15.txt

[Roger D Carney]

Good Morning,

A small updated was needed, implementers found the "standard" attribute was not 
at the correct level in the commandDataType.


Thanks
Roger


-Original Message-
From: regext  On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2018 9:31 AM
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Cc: regext@ietf.org
Subject: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-15.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions WG of the 
IETF.

Title   : Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible 
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Authors : Roger Carney
  Gavin Brown
  Jothan Frakes
Filename: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-15.txt
Pages   : 38
Date: 2018-11-04

Abstract:
   This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
   extension mapping for registry fees.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-15
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-15

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-15


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission 
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

[regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-15.txt

[internet-drafts]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions WG of the 
IETF.

Title   : Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible 
Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Authors : Roger Carney
  Gavin Brown
  Jothan Frakes
Filename: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-15.txt
Pages   : 38
Date: 2018-11-04

Abstract:
   This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
   extension mapping for registry fees.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-15
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-15

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-15


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration and characters representation

[Jiankang Yao]

Hellow Patrick Mevzek,

   Thanks.

   Your suggestion is very good.   RFC7997 is an informational RFC, and shows a 
direction. 
   Because the popular form of RFC is TXT, the TXT can not display non ASCII 
very well.
   I can use the natvie unicode characters in draft, but many readers will not 
display it correctly.
   According to my current understanding,  U+ is still the proper way to be 
easily understood by most readers.
   Many years ago, IETF EAI WG also discussed this related issue.
   I still do not see which rfc uses the natvie unicode characters directly.

   
   If possilbe, I may suggest to add some texts in the draft, which says "in 
future, the natvie unicode characters instead of U+ notation are suggested 
to use in the document"

Best Regards
Jiankang Yao

> -原始邮件-
> 发件人: "Patrick Mevzek" 
> 发送时间: 2018-11-02 12:54:37 (星期五)
> 收件人: regext@ietf.org
> 抄送: 
> 主题: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-bundling-registration and characters 
> representation
> 
> Hello,
> 
> This draft, by essence, needs and uses a lot of characters outside of ASCII 
> and for these use the U+ notation.
> 
> There is now however RFC7997 (The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs) and 
> among other things it says:
> 
> - the encoding of future RFCs will be in UTF-8
> - Where the use of non-ASCII characters is purely part of an example
>and not otherwise required for correct protocol operation, escaping
>the non-ASCII character is not required.
> - The RFC Editor encourages the use of the U+ notation except within a
>code component where one must follow the rules of the programming
>language in which the code is being written.
> 
> 
> So maybe the XML examples could be rewritten by using the native unicode 
> characters
> instead of the U+ notation, as I believe it would make them far more 
> understandable.
> 
> In the text, the other recommendations of the above RFC could be applied to 
> have
> more standardized handling.
> 
> -- 
>   Patrick Mevzek
>   p...@dotandco.com
> 
> ___
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] Picking XML namespaces

[Gould, James]

Martin,

I was involved with the namespace feedback with the launch phase extension.  
The agreement was to scope the namespaces for new extensions going forward if 
there was not a negative impact.  The org, orgext, and fee extensions that are 
going through the IESG now can support the scoping without impact, and have 
been scoped. The scoping of the namespace for changepoll does have a negative 
impact, so I am requesting to move forward with the 
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0 namespace.

Thanks,

Jim

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 4, 2018, at 1:39 AM, Martin Thomson  wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I'm seeing an increase in EPP registrations for the XML namespace and
> schema registries.
> 
> In the past, the names this group have selected are quite generic.
> 
> I would like to request that this group include a label in the names
> that it uses.  Other users of these registries carefully scope the
> names they use to avoid conflict, but this group has not done that.
> 
> I realize that there is an established pattern here that would need to
> change, which is a little disruptive, but I think that it would be
> respectful to other users of the registry to start using scoped names
> for new registrations.
> 
> That is, in the most recent document I've been asked to review:
> 
> urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:changePoll-1.0
> 
> becomes
> 
> urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:changePoll-1.0
> 
> And future documents follow the same pattern.  This is consistent with
> other uses of this registry.
> 
> ___
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
> 

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext