> -----Original Message----- > From: Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com> > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 7:16 AM > To: gavin.br...@icann.org; Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> > Cc: regext@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: [Ext] RFC 3915 and <rgpStatus> > elements > > Gavin, > > I agree with your proposed items (1. correct the XSD published by IANA; 2. > file > an errata with corrected text to allow multiple elements.). > > Are there any implementations out there that only support a single status > element in the info response and update response? That could be the case if > the grace period statuses addPeriod, autoRenewPeriod, renewPeriod, and > transferPeriod are not supported, since the delete statuses of > redemptionPeriod, pendingRestore, and pendingDelete are mutually exclusive. > > I consider the XSD in the RFC as authoritative for the implementations and the > RFC language as an error with the full suite of possible overlapping statuses > in > the RFC.
[SAH] If we want to go down this path and have the issue documented with a "hold for update" erratum, I'd be willing to submit a -bis draft to provide that update. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
