Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-brown-epp-fees-01.txt
Klaus Malorny <[email protected]> Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:26:47 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 25.04.2014 01:48, Seth Goldman wrote: > Hi Gavin, > > [...] > > As far as I can tell, no other EPP extensions puts repeated types inside the > <extension> element (for either commands or responses). Instead, they use a > top-level container type, with repeated elements nested underneath that, e.g.: > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?> > <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0"> > <command> > <check> > <domain:check xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0"> > ... > </domain:check> > </check> > <extension> > <fee:check xmlns:fee="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:fee-0.4"> > <fee:domain> > <fee:name>example.tld</fee:name> > ... > </fee:domain> > <fee:domain> > <fee:name>example.com <http://example.com></fee:name> > ... > </fee:domain> > <fee:domain> > <fee:name>example.org <http://example.org></fee:name> > ... > </fee:domain> > </fee:check> > </extension> > <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID> > </command> > </epp> > > I think if you modified your draft to follow this pattern, it would be more in > line with the convention used by other EPP extensions. > > Cheers, > Seth > > Hi all, I fully support Seth's suggestion, it would be better not to repeat the extension itself, but list the response for each domain within a single extension. Regards, Klaus _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg