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

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