James --
Thanks for the clarification, and I apologize for the extra noise caused
by my confusion here.
/a
On 8/21/18 2:00 PM, Gould, James wrote:
Adam,
The language used in EPP is negotiated in the EPP Greeting and EPP
Login of RFC 5730. The server includes the list of supported
languages in the EPP Greeting, and the client selects the language to
use for the session in the EPP Login. All text responses returned by
the server are provided using the single language that was
negotiated. The <org:reason> element includes the human-readable
reason in the negotiated language using the “lang” attribute, which
has the default value of “en” (English).
—
JG
cid:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30
*James Gould
*Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
*From: *Adam Roach <a...@nostrum.com>
*Date: *Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 2:07 PM
*To: *Linlin Zhou <zhoulin...@cnnic.cn>, James Gould <jgo...@verisign.com>
*Cc: *regext <regext@ietf.org>
*Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-regext-org-09.txt
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 <mailto: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.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous
FTP at:
ftp://http://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
<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
