Subject: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 12:04:10 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions of the IETF.

        Title           : Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
        Authors         : Roger Carney
                          Gavin Brown
                          Jothan Frakes
	Filename        : draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-04.txt
	Pages           : 34
	Date            : 2017-06-05

Abstract:
   This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
   extension mapping for registry fees.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-04
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-04

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Thomas Corte <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 10:19:19 +0200

Hello,

On 05/06/2017 21:04, [email-masked] wrote:

> ...

Thanks for this new version. We're getting there :-)

In addition to what James wrote about section 3.1. ("Client Commands"),
there's also a discrepancy in that the text explicitly mentions the
"update" command, while the enumeration "commandEnum" doesn't contain
that command. I know it's unusual for registries to charge for updates,
and that this could essentially be covered by the "custom" case, but I
think it should be included as a first-class command for consistency.
This would require an XSD change though.

While we're at it, we should think about maybe including *automatic*
renewals (as opposed to explicit renewals) as a first-class type (e.g.
"auto-renew") here, too.
I know that it's not really a command (but an action that happens due to
the lack of a delete command), but *in theory* (and our own registry
system supports that) the price for an automatic renewal could be
different from an explicit renewal, e.g. if a registry wants to promote
the early renewal of domains. But if this deemed too exotic, I could live
with using the "custom" case to signal this.

Best regards,

Thomas

-- 
TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES® is a product of:
Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
Technologiepark                             Phone: +49 231 9703-222
Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9                       Fax: +49 231 9703-200
D-44227 Dortmund                       E-Mail: [email-masked]
Germany