Patrick, The base EPP protocol is defined using epp and eppcom, where extensions (object or command / response) would naturally be dependent on the base schemas. Creating dependencies across extensions does not allow them to stand on their own, so my preference would be to copy and paste the elements from sibling extension XML schemas unless there is a large advantage with creating the dependency. There are examples of cross extension dependencies that exist today, like the inclusion of the host XML schema within the domain XML schema of RFC 5731. This dependency does require ensuring that the host XML schema is loaded ahead of the domain XML schema when pre-caching the XML schemas. The contact reference in the validate extension takes it one step further by referencing complex types that requires the use of the contact namespace directly within the XML, so it's more than just ensuring that the contact XML schema is loaded ahead of the validate XML schema. It is not hard to overcome, but I believe the priority should be to have the extensions stand on their own and only be dependent on the base XML schemas of epp and eppcom unless there is an overriding reason to add the cross-extension dependency.
— JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 6/5/18, 8:09 PM, "regext on behalf of Patrick Mevzek" <regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of p...@dotandco.com> wrote: On Mon, Jun 4, 2018, at 19:56, Gould, James wrote: > 4. I don’t recommend directly referencing the > urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.0 elements, since it adds a direct > dependency to inclusion of the contact XML schema and namespace for a > subset of the elements that are really specific to the validate mapping. > I would prefer for the validate XML schema to stand on its own by only > referring to epp and eppcom, with no cross references to contact. This > would mean copying and pasting elements directly from the contact XML > schema into the validate XML schema, which is an inconvenient, but makes > it easier to implement. I am sure that not all elements of epp/eppcom namespaces are used either so under symmetry and consistency I would find more logical that all schemas are treated the same, either all referenced, or all copied (for the parts needed). And I see no problems in referencing the contact-1.0 one. Using epp/eppcom as references already make the schema dependent on other resources and not "standing on its own". I am not sure this has a huge consequence on implementations, especially if taking into account multiple ways to implement things (and especially doing validation or not). -- Patrick Mevzek _______________________________________________ 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
