Subject: XML Schema for draft-ietf-smime-ibearch-09

From: "Blake Ramsdell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:23:03 -0800

During AUTH48, a comment was sent by Stephane Bortzmeyer to the RFC
editor asking that we create and include an XML schema in
draft-ietf-smime-ibearch-09.

If anyone in the S/MIME working group feels strongly in favor of this
proposal, please reply to the list by 5p.m. GMT-0800, December 22,
2008. If the general consensus is not in favor of this proposal, then
the draft will proceed without it.

Blake
--
Blake Ramsdell | http://www.blakeramsdell.com

---

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:36:19 -0800

While I might be generally in favor of making an XML schema - I am violently
oppose to doing this during Auth48.

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:owner-ietf-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Blake Ramsdell
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 11:23 AM
> To: [email-masked]; Stephane Bortzmeyer
> Subject: XML Schema for draft-ietf-smime-ibearch-09
> 
>

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:30:02 +0100

[I'm not a member of the S/MIME working group. Please copy me the
messages you send.]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:23:03AM -0800,
 Blake Ramsdell <[email-masked]> wrote 

> draft-ietf-smime-ibearch-09.

A small note to explain my point: it seemed strange to me that a RFC
defines a XML language, whatever its simplicity, without a formal
schema (whether in W3C Schema, in RelaxNG or in DTD).

BCP 70 "Guidelines for the Use of Extensible Markup Language (XML)
within IETF Protocol" says:

4.7 Validity and Extensibility

   One important value of XML is that there are formal mechanisms for
   defining structural and data content constraints; these constrain the
   identity of elements or attributes or the values contained within
   them.  There is more than one such formalism:

...

   This document makes the following recommendations for the definition
   of protocols using XML:

   o  Protocols should use an appropriate formalism for defining
      validity of XML protocol elements.

...

This is not just a matter of taste. It also has practical
consequences. In the version approved by IESG, there was no way
(natural language or formal schema) to say if <ibe:algorithm> is
mandatory or not inside a <ibe:request>.

Now, I understand it is AUTH48 and this is certainly a substantial
change, not just a spelling fix. Returning to the WG is certainly not
an appealing idea for most WG participants. But I am surprised that
the IESG did not catch this issue.