ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [eppext] Last Call: <draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay-10.txt> (Key Relay Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol) to Proposed Standard

2015-11-24 15:47:00
I think that's a good fix, Rik.

Scott

On Nov 24, 2015, at 3:31 AM, Rik Ribbers 
<rik(_dot_)ribbers(_at_)sidn(_dot_)nl> wrote:

Hello All,

Based on the discussion the reseller drafts within the EPPEXT working group I 
revisited the keyrelay draft and came to the conclusion I want to change 
something in the XML schema. As it is in last call I post this message in the 
IETF list and the WG list.

What is the issue:
In this thread there is a discussion on the XML schema attribute 
schemaLocation.   
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eppext/current/msg00841.html 

Having read the XML schema specification this attribute can be used in a 
document to provide hints as to the physical location of schema documents 
which may be used for assessment. In other words it is optional and is 
treated as a hint for XML parsers. We have added the schemaLocation to the 
XSDs in our own SRS implementation for XML validation and that's how it ended 
op in the keyrelay document.

Looking at the other EPP RFC (RFC5731,RFC5732,RFC5733) there is no 
schemaLocation attribute in the XML schema, so my proposal below makes the 
keyrelay document more in sync with the existing RFCs.

My proposal is to change the following in Chapter 4 Formal syntax:

  <import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"
      schemaLocation="epp-1.0.xsd" />
    <import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:eppcom-1.0"
      schemaLocation="eppcom-1.0.xsd" />
    <import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1"
      schemaLocation="secdns-1.1.xsd" />
    <import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0"
      schemaLocation="domain-1.0.xsd" />

into

  <import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"/>
  <import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:eppcom-1.0"/>
  <import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1"/>
  <import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0"/>

Is there any objection to doing this? Any other remarks?

Kind regards,
Rik Ribbers



On 20 Nov 2015, at 22:05, The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> 
wrote:


The IESG has received a request from the Extensible Provisioning Protocol>> 
Extensions WG (eppext) to consider the following document:
- 'Key Relay Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol'
<draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay-10.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2015-12-04. Exceptionally, 
comments may be>> sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, 
please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


 This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
 mapping for a key relay object that relays DNSSEC key material
 between EPP clients using the poll queue defined in RFC5730.

 This key relay mapping will help facilitate changing the DNS operator
 of a domain while keeping the DNSSEC chain of trust intact.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eppext-keyrelay/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

 https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2393/



_______________________________________________
EppExt mailing list
EppExt(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext




_______________________________________________
EppExt mailing list
EppExt(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>