Re: [eppext] EPP Extension Registration Requests from DK-Hostmaster

Ning Kong <nkong@cnnic.cn> Tue, 15 September 2015 04:09 UTC

Return-Path: <nkong@cnnic.cn>
X-Original-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B6091B38D3 for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.162
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.162 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 4X9MjsEbbIEI for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81051B38D0 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [218.241.103.61] (unknown [218.241.103.61]) by ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0ApMZX7mfdVgnFECA--.10407S2; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 12:09:31 +0800 (CST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Ning Kong <nkong@cnnic.cn>
In-Reply-To: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4A07F88E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 12:09:32 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <986C041D-5B2C-46C6-A2E9-1DC0585EE53B@cnnic.cn>
References: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4A07F79A@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F4A07F88E@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0ApMZX7mfdVgnFECA--.10407S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoWxJFWkurW5Wr1UAw43WrWxWFg_yoW5trWkpF Wftr1ak3s3Xw47X397Ca4UuryUur93WFW8JFn0qr1UJFWDWFWxt3WFyw4Yqr9rAr4rA3y5 Zw4qgw47Gwn8uFJanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUkFb7Iv0xC_Kw4lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Xr0_Ar1l84ACjcxK6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Cr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVWxJr0_GcWl84ACjcxK6I 8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26rxl6s0DM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVACY4xI 64kE6c02F40Ex7xfMcIj6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r18McIj6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8Jw Am72CE4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lF7xvr2IYc2Ij64vIr41lc2xSY4AK67AK6r45MxAIw28I cxkI7VAKI48JMxC20s026xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UMI8I3I0E5I8CrVAFwI0_Jr0_Jr4lx2 IqxVCjr7xvwVAFwI0_JrI_JrWlx4CE17CEb7AF67AKxVWUXVWUAwCIc40Y0x0EwIxGrwCI 42IY6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r1xMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVCY1x0267AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42 IY6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_WFyUJVCq3wCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E 87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07bw2NNUUUUU=
X-CM-SenderInfo: xqnr0ww6fq0xffof0/
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/3px_e0JyB4iBYTM3R_6pb0vV8_I>
Cc: "eppext@ietf.org" <eppext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [eppext] EPP Extension Registration Requests from DK-Hostmaster
X-BeenThere: eppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPPEXT <eppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eppext>, <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eppext/>
List-Post: <mailto:eppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext>, <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 04:09:39 -0000

Hi folks,

I have completed my review of EPP Extension Registration Requests from DK-Hostmaster, and I have the following comments to share,
The <dkhm:CVR> and <dkhm:pnumber> are two elements related to VAT number. It seems that VAT number is a common need in a few registries, as the specification of .se also has VATNo EPP extension. 

Followings are the discussion posts related with VAT,
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eppext/current/msg00557.html 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eppext/current/msg00558.html 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eppext/current/msg00560.html 

Since we already had some discussions on this issue, maybe continuing this work is valuable and necessary. IMO, it maybe make sense that we could define an EPP extension on VAT to fullfill most of the registries' requirements.

Cheers,
Ning

> 在 2015年9月9日,19:20,Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com> 写道:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: EppExt [mailto:eppext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hollenbeck,
>> Scott
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 7:02 AM
>> To: eppext@ietf.org
>> Subject: [eppext] EPP Extension Registration Requests from DK-
>> Hostmaster
>> 
>> Yesterday I received 10 requests from IANA to review EPP extensions
>> submitted by DK-Hostmaster. I'll forward each of them to this list
>> momentarily. I've reviewed all of them and I'm going to suggest that
>> they be considered as one request since each describes an element that
>> is part of the same schema and the same specification.
> 
> More detail:
> 
> The specification for each of the registration requests can be found here:
> 
> https://github.com/DK-Hostmaster/epp-service-specification
> 
> The current version of the schema can be found here:
> 
> https://github.com/DK-Hostmaster/epp-xsd-files/blob/master/dkhm-1.4.xsd
> 
> Each of the registration requests refers to an element that is defined in this schema:
> 
> <element name="userType" type="dkhm:userType" /> 
> <element name="EAN" type="dkhm:EAN" /> 
> <element name="CVR" type="dkhm:CVR" /> 
> <element name="pnumber" type="dkhm:pnumber" /> 
> <element name="contact" type="dkhm:contact" /> 
> <element name="trackingNo" type="dkhm:trackingNo" /> 
> <element name="domainAdvisory" type="dkhm:domainAdvisory" /> 
> <element name="orderconfirmationToken" type="dkhm:orderconfirmationToken" /> 
> <element name="domain_confirmed" type="dkhm:domain_confirmed" /> 
> <element name="contact_validated" type="dkhm:contact_validated" /> 
> <element name="registrant_validated" type="dkhm:registrant_validated" />
> 
> Each of these elements ultimately refers to an XML schema simpleType that includes a restriction for a base of type token. Based on my reading of the specification I believe the last three elements could be more efficiently represented as booleans, but what's there certainly works.
> 
> As I said in my first message in this thread I'd like to recommend to IANA that they process these requests as a single addition to the registry since each request describes an XML element that is part of the same schema and namespace. Could the other DEs please share your thoughts?
> 
> Scott
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EppExt mailing list
> EppExt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext