| We need Your Support. Make a Donation now! or |  |
To:
"Klaus Malorny" <Klaus.Malorny@knipp.de>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Wed, 5 Oct 2005 07:16:08 -0400
Content-class:
urn:content-classes:message
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Thread-Index:
AcXJmZz3nNlQFEJPRfu4CBj5mvzNqwAA+Zeg
Thread-Topic:
[ietf-provreg] registries, XML & EPP (again)
Subject:
RE: [ietf-provreg] registries, XML & EPP (again)
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se > [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se] On Behalf Of Klaus Malorny > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 6:26 AM > To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se > Subject: [ietf-provreg] registries, XML & EPP (again) > > > > Hi all, > > digging deeper into the EURid EPP specs I discovered > something that is in my > humble opinion a bit more serious than the prefix problem. It > looks like that > they took the XML schema files of the domain and contact > objects (RFC 3731, > 3733) and deliberately modified them, like adding a new > contact type or changing > whether elements are mandatory or not. I am not completely > aware of all changes, > as the schema files are not available yet. While the changes > themselves are not > a problem at all, EURid still associates these new schemes > with the IETF > namespaces, namely urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact-1.0 and > urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0. Isn't this something that > should really be > avoided for the sake of the clarity and compatibility? > Technically, it is not a > problem to use any other URI, like they did for their > proprietary extensions anyway. > > Please don't misunderstand me, I do not want to start an > EURid or whatever > registry bashing here, but the least what we need is a > standard that isn't one > (for whatever reason). Lessons like SQL or HTML have shown > where something can end. More than just "should really be avoided". "MUST NOT be done"! Those URIs are the unique, registered identifiers for the EPP schemas and namespaces. They identify the specs documented in the RFCs. Change the schemas and you have something new, different, and EPP-like that MUST NOT (in 2119 terms) be identified using the same URIs. -Scott-