Hi, James.

 

Can you elaborate on what you mean by “without the launch attributes”?  I’m not familiar with what those attributes would mean to the schema.

 

Thank you,

 

John

 

From: Gould, James [mailto:JGould@verisign.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 5:16 PM
To: John Keating
Cc: David Kipling; gtld-tech@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] Registry Escrow Policy Object

 

John,

 

I went ahead and created a launch-branch branch with the changes that support the launch attributes, I replaced the default master branch with the rolled back version of the project (without the launch attributes), and I updated the .xsd files under the xsd directory with the schemas included in the specification.  One change that is reflected in the master branch is "Added the <csvDomain:fVariantGroup> and <csvNNDN:fVariantGroup> fields to name / tag related domain name and NNDN variants, based on feedback from Klaus Malorny on the ire list.”, that is not currently in draft-arias-noguchi-dnrd-objects-mapping-05.  This change is additive and will eventually make it into the next version of the draft.  I hope this helps.

 

Thanks,

 

—

 

JG




James Gould
Principal Software Engineer
jgould@Verisign.com

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

VerisignInc.com

 

On Sep 10, 2014, at 2:07 PM, John Keating <John.Keating@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@verisign.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:07 AM
To: John Keating
Cc: David Kipling; gtld-tech@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

 


On Sep 10, 2014, at 10:50 AM, "John Keating" <John.Keating@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@verisign.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 9:53 AM
To: John Keating
Cc: David Kipling; gtld-tech@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@Verisign.com

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

VerisignInc.com

 

On Sep 10, 2014, at 9:21 AM, John Keating <John.Keating@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@nccgroup.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:52 AM
To: John Keating; gtld-tech@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?

 

 

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" />

   ...

 

 

 

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"

     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@icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of John Keating
Sent: 05 September 2014 17:56
To: gtld-tech@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
Twitter: @NCCGroupplc
Email:  David.Kipling@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

P Before you print think about the ENVIRONMENT