To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Patrick Mevzek <provreg@contact.dotandco.com>
Date:
Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:43:32 +0200
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<200509201606.j8KG6CvO071080@nic-naa.net>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.5.9i
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP to Draft: Next Steps
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net> 2005-09-21 00:36 > > And when XML did not exist, what was normative in the RFC ? The text, > > no ? :-) > > During the drafting process Scott published the corresponding schema. I was speaking about other RFCs, either not using XML at all, or before XML existed and became widespread for protocols. I know that I probably should have followed the well known rule that the code (here the XML schema) is more authoritative than the documentation (here the text), but I'm still a newbie here. Of course, I have noone to blame, except me, and I just hope things will be even better in the next iteration, with this discrepancy removed so that my error will benefit others. -- Patrick Mevzek Dot and Co <http://www.dotandco.com/>