To:
James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>
CC:
Bernie Hoeneisen <bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch>, EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Klaus Malorny <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>
Date:
Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:42:35 +0100
In-Reply-To:
<C78363CA.3701F%jgould@verisign.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100124 Shredder/3.0.2pre
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] XML Schema versioning in 4310bis
On 25/01/10 21:05, James Gould wrote: > Bernie, > > I had multiple private messages associated with this, but on the list > the only message that directly references is from me on December 8th: > > http://www.cafax.se/ietf-provreg/maillist/2009-12/msg00000.html > > [...] Hi all, I am currently trying to catch up (once again), and just want to point out in this context to my mail from Dec 18th, 2009, and James' answer. Unfortunately, I can't find James' e-mail on cafax.se, so I am quoting the respective part instead of providing a link: >> section 5/section 7: >> >> I discovered that the schema uses the same XML namespace as RFC 4310. I am not >> familiar with the policies of XML namespaces at the IETF, but I wonder whether >> there is a need to use a different XML namespace, since we considerably >> changed >> the schema (despite the fact that it should be backward compatible). > > Not according to the Area Director Alexey Melnikov, who replied with the following on the URI: > > I think just keeping namespace URIs would be fine. Your document would > need to list all changes (including additions) since RFC 4310, so that > would help in verifying that schema changes are backward compatible. > If your changes end up not being backward compatible, then new namespace > URIs can be allocated. > > Keeping the schema backward compatible is one of the key goals, where changing the URI itself would not make it backward compatible. I have to admit that I missed the point regarding the greeting message. While I think that EPP cannot live up to the expectations of an "out-of-the-box" deployment and automatic negotiations of capabilities, as the policy differences between the various registries are simply too large and beyond the scope of EPP, I think it is better to change the URI just to enable the client software to detect protocol changes and to raise an alarm if need be. Regards, Klaus -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- List run by majordomo software. For (Un-)subscription and similar details send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se