Subject: [ietf-provreg] RE: XML Namespaces, Prefixes & EPP compliance

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:35:19 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Klaus Malorny [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 8:06 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: XML Namespaces, Prefixes & EPP compliance

[snip]

> Scott, I would like to know whether you share my view that 
> this is a violation 
> of the EPP standard, and if so, whether a sentence or two can 
> be added to the 
> -bis versions that clearly states that no dependency on 
> prefix names should exist.

Not really an EPP violation, but it does sound like a violation of the
normative XML references that describe namespace requirements.  I can
definitely add something to the specs (probably section 2 of RFC 3730*)
to make that clear.

-Scott-

* This is the paragraph that might be extended:

"EPP uses XML namespaces to provide an extensible object management
framework and to identify schemas required for XML instance parsing
and validation.  These namespaces and schema definitions are used to
identify both the base protocol schema and the schemas for managed
objects.  The specific strings used to associate URIs and namespaces
(such as the string "foo" in "xmlns:foo") in EPP are illustrative and
are not needed for interoperability."

---

From: Klaus Malorny <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 15:31:10 +0200

Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:

>> [...] 
> definitely add something to the specs (probably section 2 of RFC 3730*) to
> make that clear.
> 
> -Scott-
> 
> framework and to identify schemas required for XML instance parsing and
> validation.  These namespaces and schema definitions are used to identify
> both the base protocol schema and the schemas for managed objects.  The
> specific strings used to associate URIs and namespaces (such as the string
> "foo" in "xmlns:foo") in EPP are illustrative and are not needed for
> interoperability."
> 

Hi Scott,

this sounds a bit too weak to me. I would prefer something like:

... The XML namespace prefixes used in the examples are solely for 
demonstration purposes. A conforming implementation MUST NOT require the use of 
these or any other specific namespace prefixes. ...

regards,

Klaus

___________________________________________________________________________
      |       |
      | knipp |                   Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
       -------                           Technologiepark
                                         Martin-Schmeißer-Weg 9
      Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny           44227 Dortmund
      [email-masked]             Tel. +49 231 9703 0

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams at a VSAT somewhere (or in Portland Maine) <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 08:21:56 -0400

> normative XML references

We sort of visited this when (a) we had the schema breakage proposal from
the .us operator, and  (b) we had the rucus over the do-not-publish binary
toggle, which also wasn't expressed in valid XML.

EPP is specified in XML. Break it and whatever you've got isn't EPP.

my two beads worth.
Eric