If that's what the working group intends, then it's okay to move forward
with the document. It's rather unlike the localization approached I'm
used to seeing, in which multiple copies of a message are available,
each in its own language, which is why I commented on it.
/a
On 8/20/18 10:46 PM, Linlin Zhou wrote:
Dear AD,
If we keep it consistent with other EPP RFCs and remove the maxOcuurs
value, what's your opinion?
Regards
Linlin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
zhoulin...@cnnic.cn
*From:* Gould, James <mailto:jgould=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org>
*Date:* 2018-08-21 11:17
*To:* Linlin Zhou <mailto:zhoulin...@cnnic.cn>
*CC:* Adam Roach <mailto:a...@nostrum.com>; regext
<mailto:regext@ietf.org>
*Subject:* Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-org-09.txt
Linlin,
The max occurs should be one which is the default value. We do
not want to change the reason from an optional individual element
into a optional list of up to 5 reasons. This would be
inconsistent with the other EPP RFCs.
Jim
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 20, 2018, at 10:28 PM, Linlin Zhou <zhoulin...@cnnic.cn
<mailto:zhoulin...@cnnic.cn>> wrote:
Hi James,
This was one of the comments suggested by our AD. He asked us to
give a maxOccurs value for "reason" element. I found the
discussions on the mailing list, please see below,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
§5, Page 34:
> <complexType name="checkType">
> <sequence>
> <element name="id" type="contact:checkIDType"/>
> <element name="reason" type="eppcom:reasonType"
> minOccurs="0"/>
> </sequence>
> </complexType>
The "reason" element needs to have a "maxOccurs" of
greater than one
(presumably "unbounded") to allow for the conveyance of
reasons in multiple
languages.
[Linlin] There is no limit for the "maxOccurs".. In RFC
5733, there is only a "minOccurs" value. Do we need to
define this explicitly?
Yes. The default value for both minOccurs and maxOccurs is
"1" -- if you want to allow more than one instance of an
element, you need to indicate a maxOccurs.
Quickly glancing at RFC 5733: if the intention in that
document is to allow more than one <reason> element, then
its definition is also in error.
So I checked our system and give a suggested value for "5".
We should keep it or remove it, need your comments.
Regards,
Linlin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
zhoulin...@cnnic.cn <mailto:zhoulin...@cnnic.cn>
*From:* Gould, James <mailto:jgo...@verisign.com>
*Date:* 2018-08-20 20:31
*To:* Linlin Zhou <mailto:zhoulin...@cnnic.cn>; Adam Roach
<mailto:a...@nostrum.com>; regext <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
*Subject:* Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-org-09.txt
Linlin,
In looking at the diff between draft-ietf-regext-org-08 and
draft-ietf-regext-org-09, I noticed that maxOccurs=”5” was
added to the XML schema checkType reason element. Was this
intentional, since this means that the check reason would be
morphed from an optional element into an optional list of up
to 5 reasons? My recommendation is to remove the newly added
maxOccurs=”5” from the checkType to ensure that the reason is
consistent with the other EPP mappings by being an optional
single element.
—
JG
<image001(08-21-09-36-43).png>
*James Gould
*Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
http://Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
*From: *regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org
<mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Linlin Zhou
<zhoulin...@cnnic.cn <mailto:zhoulin...@cnnic.cn>>
*Date: *Monday, August 20, 2018 at 12:12 AM
*To: *Adam Roach <a...@nostrum.com
<mailto:a...@nostrum.com>>, regext <regext@ietf.org
<mailto:regext@ietf.org>>
*Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-regext-org-09.txt
Hi,
The org drafts have been submitted to address the comments
discussed before. Thanks for all your comments and explanations.
1. comment for changing the name of <org:roid> to "roID"
We reread RFC5730 and found that <obj:roid> has been already
defined, so we did not change the name of <org:roid> to
"roID" to keep consistent with RFC5730.
2. update "epp"-scoped XML namespace
James mentioned this on the mailing list, so we have included
this update in this version.
Regards,
Linlin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
zhoulin...@cnnic.cn <mailto:zhoulin...@cnnic.cn>
*From:*internet-drafts <mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>
*Date:* 2018-08-20 10:49
*To:*i-d-annou...@ietf.org <mailto:i-d-annou...@ietf.org>
*CC:*regext <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
*Subject:* [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-org-09.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 : Extensible Provisioning
Protocol (EPP) Organization Mapping
Authors : Linlin Zhou
Ning Kong
Guiqing Zhou
Jiankang Yao
James Gould
Filename : draft-ietf-regext-org-09.txt
Pages : 45
Date : 2018-08-19
Abstract:
This document describes an Extensible Provisioning
Protocol (EPP)
mapping for provisioning and management of
organization objects
stored in a shared central repository. Specified in
Extensible
Markup Language (XML), this extended mapping is
applied to provide
additional features required for the provisioning of
organizations.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-org/
There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-org-09
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-org-09
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-org-09
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the
time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at
http://tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org>.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://http://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
