[gtld-tech] Registry Escrow Policy Object

Wed Sep 10 19:41:15 UTC 2014

John,

The authoritative schemas reside inside the draft.  The github project is used for updating the draft, but is not the authoritative location for the schemas.  I will look to sync up the schemas in the github project, since the schemas are used to validate the sample XML inserted into the draft, and should therefore be up-to-date with the draft.

Thanks,

—

JG

[cid:77031CC3-BE7A-4188-A95F-D23115A30A4D at vcorp.ad.vrsn.com]

James Gould
Principal Software Engineer
jgould at Verisign.com

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

VerisignInc.com<http://VerisignInc.com>

On Sep 10, 2014, at 2:07 PM, John Keating <John.Keating at cira.ca<mailto:John.Keating at cira.ca>> wrote:

Thanks, James.

In the meantime, are there correct, authoritive Escrow xsd files stored somewhere?  It seems odd that we need to cut and paste from the mapping spec and create our own files.

From: Gould, James [mailto:JGould at verisign.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:07 AM
To: John Keating
Cc: David Kipling; gtld-tech at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Registry Escrow Policy Object

John,

I will look at any deltas and get them updated in the github project.  The schemas included in the specification is authoritative.

Thanks,

JG

James F. Gould
Principal Engineer
Verisign

jgould at verisign.com<mailto:jgould at verisign.com>

On Sep 10, 2014, at 10:50 AM, "John Keating" <John.Keating at cira.ca<mailto:John.Keating at cira.ca>> wrote:
Thank you for your reply, James.

I’m using the Escrow xsd files from your site to validate our deposit and report.

The mapping spec doesn’t match the rde-policy.xsd, but the xsd is the standard for validation.

John

From: Gould, James [mailto:JGould at verisign.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 9:53 AM
To: John Keating
Cc: David Kipling; gtld-tech at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Registry Escrow Policy Object

David,

My github site ( https://github.com/james-f-gould/draft-ryde ) is the most up to date; although I need to rollback the updates to the csvHost-1.0.xsd, csvDomain-1.0.xsd, and csvContact-1.0.xsd schemas based on the lack of interest in the changes to support the launch extension (application and claims).  The xsd folder under the github site contains the latest version of rde-policy-1.0.xsd.  Let me know if you run into any issues.

Thanks,

—

JG

<image001.png>

James Gould
Principal Software Engineer
jgould at Verisign.com<x-msg://34/jgould@Verisign.com>

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

VerisignInc.com<http://verisigninc.com/>

On Sep 10, 2014, at 9:21 AM, John Keating <John.Keating at cira.ca<mailto:John.Keating at cira.ca>> wrote:

Hi,

I’m using the xsd files from James Gould’s github site.  Where are the correct files?

Thanks for your answer,

John

From: David Kipling [mailto:David.Kipling at nccgroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:52 AM
To: John Keating; gtld-tech at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech at icann.org>
Subject: RE: Registry Escrow Policy Object

Hi,

Looking at the specification draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping-05 online all seems fine.  Where did you get rde-policy-1.0.xsd from as scope was added during the revisions to version 5?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping-05#section-5.8.1

5.8.1<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping-05#section-5.8.1>.  <rdePolicy:policy> object

   The OPTIONAL <policy> contains the following attributes:
   o  An <element> that defines that the referenced <element> is
      REQUIRED.
   o  <scope> that defines the XPath of the element referenced by
      <element>.
   Example of <rdePolicy:policy> object:

   ...
   <rdePolicy:policy scope="//rde:deposit/rde:contents/rdeDomain:domain"
     element="rdeDom:registrant" />
   ...

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping-05#section-9.15

9.15<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping-05#section-9.15>.  Policy Object

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
   <schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdePolicy-1.0"
     xmlns:rdePolicy="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rdePolicy-1.0"
     xmlns:rde="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"
     xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
     elementFormDefault="qualified">

     <annotation>
       <documentation>
         Registry Data Escrow Policy schema
       </documentation>
     </annotation>

     <import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rde-1.0"/>
     <element name="policy" type="rdePolicy:policyType"
       substitutionGroup="rde:content"/>

     <complexType name="policyType">
       <complexContent>
         <extension base="rde:contentType">
           <attribute name="scope" type="token" use="required"/>
           <attribute name="element" type="anyURI" use="required"/>
         </extension>
       </complexContent>
     </complexType>
   </schema>

Regards

David

From: gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of John Keating
Sent: 05 September 2014 17:56
To: gtld-tech at icann.org<mailto:gtld-tech at icann.org>
Subject: [gtld-tech] Registry Escrow Policy Object

Hi,

There seems to be a discrepancy between the way an Escrow Deposit Policy object is defined.

In section 5.8.1 of version 5 of the Object mapping doc it’s defined as:

The OPTIONAL <policy> contains the following attributes:

   o  An <element> that defines that the referenced <element> is
      REQUIRED.

   o  <scope> that defines the XPath of the element referenced by
      <element>.

   Example of <rdePolicy:policy> object:

   <rdePolicy:policy scope="//rde:deposit/rde:contents/rdeDomain:domain"
     element="rdeDom:registrant" />

In rde-policy-1.0.xsd it’s defined as:

<element name="policy" type="rdePolicy:policyType"

substitutionGroup="rde:content"/>

<complexType name="policyType">

<complexContent>

<extension base="rde:contentType">

<attribute name="element" type="anyURI" use="required"/>

</extension>

</complexContent>

</complexType>

Which says it has one attribute named ‘element’ of type ‘anyURI’, and the attribute ‘scope’ is not mentioned and so is not allowed.

Has this difference in definitions been mentioned before?

Thanks,

John

________________________________
David Kipling
Solutions Architect
NCC Group
Manchester Technology Centre, Oxford Road
Manchester, M1 7EF

Telephone: +44 161 209 5430
Mobile:
Fax:
Website: www.nccgroup.com<http://www.nccgroup.com/>
Twitter: @NCCGroupplc<https://twitter.com/NCCGroupplc>
Email:  David.Kipling at nccgroup.com<mailto:David.Kipling at nccgroup.com>

<image001.jpg><http://www.nccgroup.com/>

________________________________

This email is sent for and on behalf of NCC Group. NCC Group is the trading name of NCC Services Limited (Registered in England CRN: 2802141). Registered Office: Manchester Technology Centre, Oxford Road, Manchester, M1 7EF. The ultimate holding company is NCC Group plc (Registered in England CRN: 4627044).

Confidentiality: This e-mail contains proprietary information, some or all of which may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail and then delete the original. If you are not the intended recipient you may not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on any information contained in this e-mail. You must not inform any other person other than NCC Group or the sender of its existence.

For more information about NCC Group please visit www.nccgroup.com<http://www.nccgroup.com/>

P Before you print think about the ENVIRONMENT

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20140910/84c5a3bc/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BF09FAA4-32D8-46E0-BED0-CD72F43BD6E0[81].png
Type: image/png
Size: 4109 bytes
Desc: BF09FAA4-32D8-46E0-BED0-CD72F43BD6E0[81].png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gtld-tech/attachments/20140910/84c5a3bc/BF09FAA4-32D8-46E0-BED0-CD72F43BD6E081-0001.png>