[clue] XML review of draft-ietf-clue-protocol-17

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 17 October 2018 00:09 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: clue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: clue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D72F130E65 for <clue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m6yA_fcJ29Ps for <clue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22a.google.com (mail-oi1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91779126BED for <clue@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id v69-v6so19663600oif.1 for <clue@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=mWnq4bABILlC1PG1/Bxf3pgrDcFXQGopgnesIteBhmU=; b=FDWI5mXzVLChSTN3K7+oO+OQxn7KNtZVEOOyExXq87RQD6aCuDxCqRzf4tr4lPVK3B a9UcQEqZspmCOb9/nZcTaH+ujrCn5BS8T7gk++W3g3VHRxSjFkwiXBmiI7ExoCUtyffh /AVKk46q2bsYNumvhu1taGSnMzF6qAbVhGRokp9oVa2h1lxH+OsO4UaOrXX3+0qBw7h4 +i8XnjoGXG4hm9XSLB/bUj/bHazaUGXmJi7RCTAAhXhCEdZwceJTzg2PVPM8KlO3S4n1 tjoKIOEA1WaYSCeKhdgpJDNlZLw2Oh9BlUZisrQvwSMRl2q26GSoWdzEOM7SSdSfx25G qnHQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=mWnq4bABILlC1PG1/Bxf3pgrDcFXQGopgnesIteBhmU=; b=CC28PyBz8X2pNsp06dDR0eeR3bzCAqimztNItMDSqjd18dNf2cCFceqvk5vMbPAc/T teix125h13TNGNUpXcDtZBls3j4Op35AOIjuW2yoF0VfCBNQCp9LXluI9UmQ3a1CJLUW DBmbxeleZPT4diQD6kPYndDtYUW3TQSayonDmFnVyTHaEz0Y2GQy1tkBwVknRl0CSFu0 gQZBhZSR/VRYstLaGqFAI/SOGWItx3sAlS5Q4FggsPvxI9/SCEwIMHZRiZrFylqRf/KG gRjiINziutFtA1prowTFli+2uO5CtiggqmPvz2eiYyl12X/G/mYGr/gFnugjtDx5qd52 NU3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoiPYzs93F6vQFl8wbXSHx1efSBMX7PE+yJA7k+YK2hZUgu5ZfBz aXpbn6vtpwGiPkfwXkWGFVY2NF3ISU82n6KYWJucZNV80mM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61vWa6zGgDDt83Ly1ipXBche4EpQdocUo3hxDJ6xPw/icqEjuV/j2DrWpgGazNQmfR6DlF9fwgDOBs3UZz7+qg=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:de46:: with SMTP id v67-v6mr13396114oig.167.1539734964700; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:09:14 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXL6iWf+G+shwQsMoom4wT0=ynjqAE918z3dyt0r7VoPw@mail.gmail.com>
To: clue@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/clue/w8xiF1qe50nofOcbM1L1UEaXusI>
Subject: [clue] XML review of draft-ietf-clue-protocol-17
X-BeenThere: clue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: CLUE - ControLling mUltiple streams for TElepresence <clue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/clue>, <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/clue/>
List-Post: <mailto:clue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>, <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 00:09:27 -0000

I was asked to provide expert review of the registrations for the XML
schema in this document and noticed a few problems.  I also have a few
suggestions.

1. Don't use schemaLocation in this document, especially in the
schema, but also in examples

2. Please try to be more consistent with prefixes throughout.  The
namespace defined in the draft is sometimes given no prefix, sometimes
the overly generic "ns2".  I appreciate that these are generated
examples, but more thought needs to be given to that.  In particular,
the schema assigns two different prefixes to the same namespace.

3. This definition is useless:

    <xs:attribute name="protocol" type="xs:string" fixed="CLUE"
        use="required" />

All that a definition like this does is force people to waste bytes.
The namespace is sufficient to identify the protocol.  Use of fixed
and required attributes is best left to restrictions of complex types.

4. You can add the attribute extension point to the base message
definition.  Element extensions unfortunately have to be attached to
specific message types for ordering reasons, but attributes are
unordered.

5. Consider vertical whitespace in your code.  It helps readability
considerably.