Thanks for all the comments and explanations. I'll update the drafts as soon as possible.
Regards, Linlin zhoulin...@cnnic.cn From: Adam Roach Date: 2018-08-22 03:14 To: Gould, James; Linlin Zhou CC: regext Subject: Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-org-09.txt 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 James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.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 From: Gould, James Date: 2018-08-21 11:17 To: Linlin Zhou CC: Adam Roach; regext 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> 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 From: Gould, James Date: 2018-08-20 20:31 To: Linlin Zhou; Adam Roach; regext 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 From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Linlin Zhou <zhoulin...@cnnic.cn> Date: Monday, August 20, 2018 at 12:12 AM To: Adam Roach <a...@nostrum.com>, regext <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 From: internet-drafts Date: 2018-08-20 10:49 To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org CC: regext 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/ _______________________________________________ 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
