Greetings, There is a difference between the XML schema published in the IETF XML Registry ([1]) and that inlined into RFC 3915. I can't find any indication that this has previously been noticed.
Disregarding irrelevant differences in whitespace and comments, the difference is in the definition of the <rgpStatus> element. In the schema published by IANA ([1]), it is: <element name="rgpStatus" type="rgp:statusType"/> In the RFC, it is: <element name="rgpStatus" type="rgp:statusType" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> This means that, depending on where the schema was sourced from, different EPP implementations will disagree on how many <rgpStatus> elements can be present in EPP commands and responses. I have no idea how this happened, but I also have no idea how it should be fixed. Which version is authoritative? * Should the XSD in the IETF registry be updated to match the RFC? * Should an errata on the RFC be filed? I worry that the first option might have an impact on implementations which automatically pull XSD files from the registry. The RFC itself is vague in its intent. Notwithstanding the maxOccurs="unbounded", throughout the text it says that there can only ever be a single <rgpStatus> in <info> responses and <update> commands. How should this be resolved? Gavin. [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/schema/rgp-1.0.xsd -- Gavin Brown Principal Engineer, Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) https://www.icann.org _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
