Re: BEEP Transport

[Eric Brunner <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

> BEEP does not have an explicit dependency on TCP, though this draft
> describes TCP connectivity.  Would it be possible to clarify either a
> specific requirement for TCP transport (expanding on the reference to
> RFC3081), or note that protocols other than TCP are possible and that this
> is just one possible way of moving data around?

There is a reference to 3080, as well as to 3081. I don't see the problem,
but do suggest language.

> I believe it completely inappropriate for a WG draft to define a profile
> using vendor-specific URIs.  I'm not aware of any IETF document that

I agree, did I fail to flag any? I use the usual C convention of commented
tripe-X to denote known broken-nes in code, or in this case, XML exchanges.

> describes IETF-standard BEEP profile definition procedures; does such a
> document exist?  Perhaps one is needed if not, but in the mean time I think
> it would be better to expand on the xml.resource.org precedent used by other
> profiles described in IETF WG documents (such as those defined for TLS and
> SASL).

Milage varies. Marshall needs to get some profile namespace, otherwise I
will.

> Rather than using Content-Type: text/xml, the base EPP spec defines an
> application/epp+xml media type.  I'd like to recommend use of this media
> type instead of text/xml.

Thanks.

> The XML Schema references are outdated.  The current references should point
> here:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/, and
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/

Thanks again.

Note to the chairs, I take the transfer from "individual" to "working group"
seriously. If asked I will edit the working group drafts which I was a
co-author. If the chairs and/or the WG designate someone(s) else, I'll give
them the nroff sources.

Eric