[eppext] schemaLocation (was Re: I-D Action: draft-zhou-eppext-reseller-mapping-02.txt)

Patrick Mevzek <Patrick.Mevzek@afnic.fr> Fri, 20 November 2015 09:38 UTC

Return-Path: <Patrick.Mevzek@afnic.fr>
X-Original-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 133661AC3B6 for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 01:38:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.55
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id si_aRmpNT8-p for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 01:38:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EA051AC3AB for <eppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 01:38:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost []) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 28D7F280442 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:38:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay1.nic.fr (relay1.nic.fr []) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B9428038C for <eppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:38:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (citrine.tech.ipv6.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:1348:7::86:96]) by relay1.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id F11854C003C; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:38:11 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <1448012291.1962.13.camel@citrine-mobile>
From: Patrick Mevzek <Patrick.Mevzek@afnic.fr>
To: eppext@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:38:11 +0200
In-Reply-To: <C69493D6-9892-481C-9F2C-D8E0709733FC@sidn.nl>
References: <2015101211271706831021@cnnic.cn> <4B1E0C5A-4AF5-467C-B003-566A43F843F4@sidn.nl> <2015112010340024098728@cnnic.cn> <C69493D6-9892-481C-9F2C-D8E0709733FC@sidn.nl>
Organization: AFNIC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.5-2+b1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/WcWzPf877sjlrFIgFNgEUZxdTjY>
Subject: [eppext] schemaLocation (was Re: I-D Action: draft-zhou-eppext-reseller-mapping-02.txt)
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: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:38:46 -0000

Le vendredi 20 novembre 2015 à 07:41 +0000, Rik Ribbers a écrit :

> [rik] You are completely correct. This is an mistake by my own, I have
> some tooling in place where I added it myself to get the xml
> validation up and running….

It would maybe be interesting/into EPPEXT scope, to provide some
guidance to extensions' authors, both on the namespace to use (as there
is a lot of ways, from http://whatever to urn:ietf:whatever to
urn:X-whatever and so on), and if the schemaLocation attribute
should/must be included.

There is nothing (a little on namespaces but really nothing on
schemaLocation) in RFC3735 about that and a ton of new extensions have
been created since then.

Also in fact by re-reading this RFC now I come over this part, which
does not seem to me very well in line with the existence of the IANA
registry on EPP extensions:
Extensions need not be published as Internet-Draft or RFC documents
if they are intended for operation in a closed environment or are
otherwise intended for a limited audience. In such cases extensions
MAY be documented in a file and structural format that is appropriate
for the intended audience

Patrick Mevzek