Subject: [regext] pass on the lower fee

From: Martin Casanova <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 15:31:17 +0200

Hello

We are introducing a lower fee for automatic renewal of domains that
have been signed for a certain amount of time. (signed through EPP or CDS)
Some resellers would like to pass on the lower fee to their customers
and are interested to know the specific renewal fee of a domain after it
has been renewed.

We are looking for the right EPP extension that could be used for this
purpose. Maybe in the form of a Poll Message per domain.

Could the Change poll extension (rfc8590) be used for that purpose?

We are also considering the Registry Fee Extension (rfc8748) but the
reseller would have to query every domain plus the given fee reflects
the situation at that precise moment which
 is not necessarily the time the automatic renewal takes place. The
domain could go signed/unsigned anytime and therefore the fee of the
renewal would eventually change.

Are there any registries that do autorenewal and communicate that event
with a poll message? Does it contain the fee ?

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks

Martin

-- 
SWITCH 
Martin Casanova, Domain Applications
Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland 
phone +41 44 268 15 55, direct +41 44 268 16 25
[email-masked], www.switch.ch

---

From: Mario Loffredo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 16:30:41 +0200

Hi Martin,

at .it we renew every domain automatically but the fee is always the same.

However, if I understood well, it seems to me that a possible solution 
might be a combination of the extensions defined in the two RFCs.

After all, RFC5730 allows to include more elements in the extension 
section of an EPP response.

You can use a poll message including as extensions the 
changePoll:changeData element, to convey that the operation child is 
"autoRenew", plus the fee:renew element, to convey the applied fee.

Best,

Mario

Il 17/08/2021 15:31, Martin Casanova ha scritto:
> and are interested to know the specific renewal fee of a domain after 
> it has been renewed.
>
> Are there any registries that do autorenewal and communicate that 
> event with a poll message? Does it contain the fee ?
>
> [email-masked],www.switch.ch
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

-- 
Dr. Mario Loffredo
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web: http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo

---

From: "Thomas Corte (TANGO support)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 16:53:54 +0200

Hello,

> section of an EPP response.

I'd agree that a combination of the changePoll and fee response
extensions could be used here, but there are minor problems (see below).

> "autoRenew", plus the fee:renew element, to convey the applied fee.

In RFC 8748, <fee:renew> is defined for commands, while <fee:renData> is
defined for (transform) responses, so <renData> seems more appropriate.

One problem here is that the poll response in this case isn't strictly
the response to any (client) transform command.

Actually, RFC 8748 explicitly states

  "This extension does not add any elements to the EPP <poll> or <info>
   commands or responses."

which indicates that this use case (delivering fees for unsolicited,
server-initiated actions in poll messages) isn't really covered by the
EPP fee extension yet, even if including them in poll responses is
syntactically allowed as far as the XSD is concerned. However, registrars
supporting the fee extension are unlikely to expect fee information in
this place.

But I think support for this use case should be added to a revised
version of RFC 8748.

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

---

From: Martin Casanova <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 14:51:37 +0200

Thanks a lot Mario, Thomas and James for your helpful feedback and 
example that point me all to the same solution!

One more question: We would only be using a snippet of the fee extension 
and its namespace in this poll message but not fully implement it.

Therefore should we include it in the greeting services of the server or 
not? In any case we need to include the XSD of rfc-8748 in our code 
since we are validating our own responses.
We are thinking of an out of band opt in feature for clients to receive 
such poll messages so if they opt in they should be ready to digest it...

We are still considering if the impact of this feature on reaching our 
goals would be big enough to justify the implementation effort. However 
if so we would welcome a revised version of rfc 8784 that includes this 
approach.

Best regards

Martin

---

From: InterNetX - Marco Schrieck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 15:45:11 +0200

Hi Martin,

I can speak only from my side.

we parse the greating and activate from the response different modules
in our software.

If the namespace is not included, we have to manually add it somewhere.

Regards

Marco

>> But I think support for this use case should be added to a revised

Marco Schrieck
Bereichsleiter Entwicklung

-- 
InterNetX GmbH
Johanna-Dachs-Str. 55
93055 Regensburg
Germany

Tel. +49 941 59559-0
Fax  +49 941 59579-050

www.internetx.com
www.facebook.com/InterNetX
www.twitter.com/InterNetX

Geschäftsführer:
Thomas Mörz (CEO), Hakan Ali
Amtsgericht Regensburg, HRB 7142

---

From: "Patrick Mevzek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 12:39:38 -0500

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021, at 07:51, Martin Casanova wrote:
> not?

Yes IMNSHO.

If the server does not mention in `<greeting>` ALL of its extensions,
then the client needs empirical methods or static configuration, both being
bad and full of edge cases. Again, a server/registry could think this is "fine", 
but this is not remembering that an EPP client is often or even almost always an
EPP client to multiple EPP servers and has to tackle all the complexity arising
from this. Even the smallest "edge" case in one server that may look fine from
server view, can become a huge burden on client side when other servers have to
be handled at the same time.

Also, more philosophically, what aim will have the `greeting` and its `svcExtension`
part if it has to be considered not exhaustive of what the server can use?

> In any case we need to include the XSD of rfc-8748 in our code 

This goes back to the old discussion of managing unsupported namespaces, but
that is when the client DOES NOT mention in its `login` a namespace that
the server needs to use when constructing some reply.

-- 
  Patrick Mevzek
  [email-masked]