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 definitio
> -Original Message-
> From: Gavin Brown
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 12:15 PM
> To: REGEXT Working Group
> Cc: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RFC 3915 and elements
>
> Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
> links
> or open attachme
Hello Gavin,
On 20.02.25 18:15, Gavin Brown wrote:
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 white
This is indeed interesting. I just looked at the IETF DataTracker, which shows
the history of the draft that became RFC 3915. The last version of the draft
prior to RFC publication (draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp-04) is missing the
maxOccurs="unbounded" attribute. That could explain where the schema i
Agreed, based on the makeup of the statuses, with the inclusion of the grace
period statuses of the RFC, maxOccurs="unbounded" is correct. The RFC XML
schema should be authoritative.
--
JG
James Gould
Fellow Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 2019
