Cc:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
maarten <maarten.bosteels@dns.be>
Date:
Thu, 06 Oct 2005 14:47:08 +0200
In-Reply-To:
<046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07E850A1@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2-1.4.1.centos4 (X11/20050323)
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] registries, XML & EPP (again)
Hi all, The prefix problem is actually a bug in our documentation: no specific prefixes are required. Concerning the IETF namespace URI's : we will use our own URI's for all the schemas that we have modified. Maarten Bosteels software developer DNS Belgium Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se >>[mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of Klaus Malorny >>Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 6:26 AM >>To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se >>Subject: [ietf-provreg] registries, XML & EPP (again) >> >> >> >>Hi all, >> >>digging deeper into the EURid EPP specs I discovered >>something that is in my >>humble opinion a bit more serious than the prefix problem. It >>looks like that >>they took the XML schema files of the domain and contact >>objects (RFC 3731, >>3733) and deliberately modified them, like adding a new >>contact type or changing >>whether elements are mandatory or not. I am not completely >>aware of all changes, >>as the schema files are not available yet. While the changes >>themselves are not >>a problem at all, EURid still associates these new schemes >>with the IETF >>namespaces, namely urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.0 and >>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0. Isn't this something that >>should really be >>avoided for the sake of the clarity and compatibility? >>Technically, it is not a >>problem to use any other URI, like they did for their >>proprietary extensions anyway. >> >>Please don't misunderstand me, I do not want to start an >>EURid or whatever >>registry bashing here, but the least what we need is a >>standard that isn't one >>(for whatever reason). Lessons like SQL or HTML have shown >>where something can end. >> >> > >More than just "should really be avoided". "MUST NOT be done"! > >Those URIs are the unique, registered identifiers for the EPP schemas >and namespaces. They identify the specs documented in the RFCs. Change >the schemas and you have something new, different, and EPP-like that >MUST NOT (in 2119 terms) be identified using the same URIs. > >-Scott- > > > >