Re: [ietf-provreg] XML Schema versioning in 4310bis

[James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>]

Title: Re: [ietf-provreg] XML Schema versioning in 4310bis

Bernie,

We have considered this in prior discussions on the list.  The consensus was to keep backward compatibility by keeping the version number the same.  The updated draft is additive to the original RFC, so according to the AD this was an acceptable approach.  

-- 


JG 

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Principal Software Engineer
VeriSign Naming Services
jgould@verisign.com
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Services.  If you have received  this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by  telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a  copy.  Thank you.

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:09:12 -0500
To: EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Subject: [ietf-provreg] XML Schema versioning in 4310bis

Hi

As already pointed out to the authors of draft-gould-rfc4310bis, I see an
issue with the version numbering of the XML Schema. Although rfc4310bis
changes the XML schema defined in RFC 4310, it intends to reuse the
version number.

From implementor point of view this is a very bad idea. It leads to
confusion and inconsistencies, in particular in the transition phasis. How
should an EPP Client figure out the capabilities of the EPP Server? The
repsonse to hello won't be useful to distiguish which schema applies.

I run into a similar problem while implementing RFC 5076. As there was a
change in the schema during the standardization process, I even needed to
distinguish between early I-D implementions and the final version of the
XML schema. I solved it by incrementing the sub-version of the XML schema.
See: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5076#section-7

Therefore I strongly recommend to increment the (sub-)version number of
the XML Schema for 4310bis to 1.1

During transition period, the server can announce both versions and the
client knows what it is up to.

cheers,
  Bernie
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software.  For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se