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"
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)
Precedence: list

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Extensions need not be published as Internet-Draft or RFC documents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