On 24 March 2017 11:05:44 CET, Thomas Corte <thomas.co...@knipp.de> wrote: >Hello Bernhard, > >On 23/03/2017 16:04, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > >> In my view 2004 is more on the protocol-layer, i.e. value supplied >not in >> curl -s -o- >https://www.currency-iso.org/dam/downloads/lists/list_one.xml | \ >> sed -n -e "/<Ccy>/s/.*>\([^<]*\)<.*/\1/p" | sort | uniq | tr "\n" " >" >> >> 2306 is a policy violation, i.e. may be a valid currencyType but is >> not supported by your registry. > >I see, however it seems futile to have these two levels of checking... >the server-supported currencies are obviously a subset of the globally >available currencies, so any currency not present in the long list is >bound to be rejected later on when the server checks for support. > >If at all, I'd probably rather like to see the restriction to existing >currencies done via the schema, i.e. by an explicit enumeration of >valid >values in the XSD.
That's what normative references are for IMHO. You wouldn't want to update the fee RFC if someone invents a new currency. You might want to throw an error if someone configures the server to use a new/typoed currency and always 2306 when receiving a currency outside of the configured enumeration, thus ignoring 2004 completely at runtime. cheers, _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
