[regext] draft-ietf-regext-org extensibility comments
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Thu, 25 October 2018 21:09 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BCE912DDA3 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:09:50 -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 o99VElUGbyaZ for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x235.google.com (mail-oi1-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::235]) (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 65FA912D4E9 for <regext@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x235.google.com with SMTP id 20-v6so7974087oip.1 for <regext@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:09:48 -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=5hcXiyZZik23gg1ZQjf5dLBbZOxXFFt9ELXa1XTEQKQ=; b=uyRlXnuKZUuw4HQUgsG/KxbFnmKJ3ay2e00Xgy4rtgdKIHh5QOJxhMr3Loy/Dm3z3+ d47UcZwcICKxEsnhrvI4KEqTAOWutdlfOP42v9veLXs+Pty8k/woWMx+/WMYPXjpFQKq GPzusJ0jk2VHJAigNmk6FobFh+b1kEqN9Oxo6yLEMLJY2amr0I/aPN6tRx4Dz4VJrEb/ en9EA7WSkyuLXCikqpco/8t9stVzMD4M3xqJdB1F9M5+ZXSZvptp9nf3LOI4uLbpYfKB t+XNhhJCYQR2i4UH4TdjnJB3hvr66iZRrjnbhhuETSriBNop1mwhI8KzDjeZ1tmB7eYd vBXg==
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=5hcXiyZZik23gg1ZQjf5dLBbZOxXFFt9ELXa1XTEQKQ=; b=dirouwKciZS7upMzQz9i67hQKR44RPa/3bB0D6bG7ioyTEvFJoicV8rJRvECtU773Y fxai7Ov0MZhPbfgYrw6Q/TNXQ/Pyghq0x+YTxlFp/X4e0/x9dXykr6BRDkuxVKwKZTp3 oRbIrmEyMD84iRZGCyRZfNnu5HMIj2XlakaLiQfxAjqJht1h1HmlEH0hjAr4tuzcxezs 5hBTVlykRRCGeVmiD4jy1cq40m9OlbLO9qJ341PlPxpcAwbybP9S1w9pzqMVy6xtZ4yw Z7+7IHoysFZYYSQvhP1NZ7mr5+qHS0c4wJng0PebTMVxdpwlQeVEGqgVJ4RGrNy46UKO d5Hg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gKBgDhjeA8xclnYKzzU3hmInSZ1IUz2ltEXAStkhNKVAECr1Aqu bupPspWqx4uIlFtPfBRPIVEGiCy7RIeJiabzUSTyjb9FhvE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5cB8GvCu6Tx9JPm11LrmtCx+4sqmMBRZaU2V2L10MZBZ0sP/AgtJTq5RF51HmtrVfvEDU8MkRsIsWPE+eye5HQ=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:3554:: with SMTP id c81-v6mr504443oia.308.1540501787406; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:09:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 08:09:38 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnU+9EDxoO6bX8WDst0uwDbX2ABcJxJktugbea5XMh_kAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: regext@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/HJVwqlTZvC_A0RqUF7PFnPgnSEE>
Subject: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-org extensibility comments
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 21:09:51 -0000
Hi, I was asked to review draft-ietf-regext-org for the XML namespace and schema registries. Everything looks fine, except that I think we got crossed wires somewhere in the back and forth. The comment I made was that certain types use xs:enumeration with a set of values. Here I refer to epp-org:statusType, epp-org:roleStatusType, and epp-org:contactAttrType. The question was whether these types were intended to be extended, or whether the working group was confident that the list was exhaustive. Based on the content of the lists, it doesn't appear possible that the lists could be exhaustive, but maybe there are constraints in this domain that ensure this is the case. The current structure of the schema would prevent these from ever being extended [1]. The comment was then a question: does the working group believe that the set of values for these When I asked, the response was about epp-org:roleType/type. That confused me. That element is defined as xs:token and has a registry associated with it, so it's clear that this is extensible. I'm asking about these enumerated types. And a bonus question, which I would not have commented on as the designated expert, but since I'm writing, I'll ask for my own gratification: Why define yet another addressing format? Just in the IETF we have a ton of those already. RFC 5139 (of which I'm an author, for my sins), RFC 6351 (XML vCard), just to start with. --Martin [1] I guess you could say that the schema isn't normative, and it's just illustrative. But that is contrary to common practice and would require a LOT more text for the document to make any sense, because you would end up relying much more on the text having a normative description of elements. So I'm assuming here that implementations will be allowed to reject inputs that fail schema validation.
- [regext] draft-ietf-regext-org extensibility comm… Martin Thomson
- Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-org extensibility … Linlin Zhou
- Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-org extensibility … Martin Thomson
- Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-org extensibility … Adam Roach
- Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-org extensibility … Martin Thomson
- Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-org extensibility … Linlin Zhou