Subject: [Crisp] Last Call Comments on common-transport-03

From: Marcos Sanz/Denic <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:03:15 +0200

Hello Andy,
hello all,

yet again, here are some last call comments (sorry):

Section 3: On the use of attribute "language" for all <description>: RFC 
3470 strongly recommends to use the attribute "xml:lang" for these 
purposes instead.

Section 3: Wouldn't it be more compact to have a <authenticationResult> 
instead of two sepparate elements for one semantic? Then 
<authenticationResult> would have a child choice between <success/> and 
<failure/> (together with the potential <description> children). This is 
just optimization, I really don't care much about this.

Section 3: Why is the attribute protocolId of type "token", but the other 
Ids (extensionIds, authenticationIds) are "normalizedString"? I know that 
the only difference is the whitespace collapsing, I just want to know if 
there's some deeper meaning behind that.

Section 4: Seeing the comments on the lwz draft in the general IETF 
mailing list, I don't know if it's fortunate to list dreg1 in the example 
as being transported over iris.lwz

Typos/Formulation:
Section 1: s/specifed/specified/
Section 1: s/comforant/conformant/
Section 4: s/Each of these element types/Each of these element types 
(except <versions>)/
Section 4: s/optionalal/optional/
Section 4: s/identifers/identifiers/
Section 4: s/transfered/transferred/
Section 4: s/transfer of data is counted/transfer of data could be 
counted/

And the actualization/corrections of the references section, but this has 
already been mentioned for the lwz draft in the general list.

Best regards,
Marcos

_______________________________________________
Crisp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:54:12 -0400

> 3470 strongly recommends to use the attribute "xml:lang" for these 

Considering that both the reference for the 'language' datatype in XML 
Schema and the definition of the values for xml:lang in XML 1.0 both point 
back to RFC 3066, these are functionally equivalent.  This is really just a 
difference in style.  The guidance in 3470 is to use such a feature, 
xml:lang explicitly being mentioned in the case of DTDs.

> just optimization, I really don't care much about this.

I'm not sure how it would be more compact because your suggestion adds an 
element.  Again, this is a difference in style.  It should also be noted 
that XPC defines the authentication success and authentication failure 
chunks as two different types.

> there's some deeper meaning behind that.

There is no deep meaning other than lack of consistency.  Which do you 
prefer, token or normalizedString?

> as being transported over iris.lwz

LWZ existed before XPC.  If this is a big deal, we can change it.

> already been mentioned for the lwz draft in the general list.

Thanks.

-andy

---

From: Marcos Sanz/Denic <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:31:17 +0200

Hi Andy,

> xml:lang explicitly being mentioned in the case of DTDs.

Absolutely, the semantics it's the same. The point is whether we need to 
introduce a new attribute and its definition, or we can resort to one 
which is already embedded in the XML specification. I'd prefer the latter.
For me, 3470 strongly recommends to use xml:lang in any case, not only for 
DTDs, but we can ask the XML directorate about my interpretation. Hmmm... 
wait a moment! You are a member of the XML directorate! :-)

> chunks as two different types.

Yes, I've started reading XPC that after that I sent the mail. Let's leave 
it like it is now.

> prefer, token or normalizedString?

The first question is: Should identifiers be allowed to contain 
whitespace? I don't see a reason for banning them, they are like any other 
characters. Common-transport states that the identifiers are of no 
specific type and explicitly states it will define none. Further: one of 
the examples contains a whitespace in the autenticationId and URLs can 
contain spaces.

So let's keep spaces in it. But if they are like any other characters and 
common-transport doesn't want to define a specific type of them, why 
should

"PLAIN EXTERNAL" match "PLAIN   EXTERNAL"

? It seems then to me that whitespace collapsing is not a wished feature, 
and would tend to use normalizedString.

> LWZ existed before XPC.  If this is a big deal, we can change it.

No, not really a big deal.

Best regards,
Marcos

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:48:52 -0400

> wait a moment! You are a member of the XML directorate! :-)

Keep in mind, 3470 was written before there was an XML directorate. 
Additionally, 3470 has caused great confusion in the IETF with many people 
coming to the XML directorate asking that Relax NG be given the same status 
as XML Schema and DTDs in the mistaken belief that 3470 only allows XML 
Schema and DTDs in IETF work (3470 doesn't say that nor does the XML 
directorate have any power over this).

> and would tend to use normalizedString.

I don't understand your logic, but I'm fine with the conclusion.

-andy