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 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
Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 2:07 PM
To: Linlin Zhou , James Gould
Cc: regext
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 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:
>
>
>
> minOccurs="0"/>
>
>
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 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
James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
http://Verisign.com
From: regext on behalf of Linlin Zhou
Date: Monday, August 20, 2018 at 12:12 AM
To: Adam Roach , regext
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 to "roID"
We reread RFC5730 and found that has been already defined, so we did
not change the name of 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
