Alex wrote: >> No. Each fee involved would need to be equal or over the fee required by the server. >>
Agreed. Thanks, Jody Kolker 319-294-3933 (office) 319-329-9805 (mobile) Please contact my direct supervisor Charles Beadnall (cbeadn...@godaddy.com) with any feedback. This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. -----Original Message----- From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Mayrhofer Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:36 PM To: Thomas Corte <thomas.co...@knipp.de>; regext@ietf.org Cc: supp...@tango-rs.com Subject: Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees Thomas Corte wrote: > I just realized that the agreement seems to be that it is OK to > specify a larger fee than actually charged by the server. Yes. And i think it's good. > I don't think this is a good idea, I'd prefer requiring a perfect > match of all fees. Sure, allowing the specification of larger fees > still guards the registrar from losing money, but it will also > potentially lead to the registrar unintendedly overcharging a customer > if e.g. fees are statically configured in a registrar's system, and a > price change notification is missed. We can never prevent registrars from "overcharging" a customer, and i do consider it out of scope for the IETF. What i don't consider out of scope of the IETF, however, is the robustness principle of "be conservative what you send, be liberal in what you accept". Especially in situations where there's a rush for names, a failed transaction just because someone "overbid" the registry could create problems. Further, requiring a "perfect match" would prevent models like dutch auctions, where prices slowly decrease over time. A check could never reflect the actual, current price, so "overbidding" is required in such situations. More hypothetically, but, possible. > It also raises the question what to do when multiple fees are involved. > If the server e.g. charges 50 for creating an initial application > (immediate) and 50 later upon a domain's allocation (delayed), should > the server accept it if the registrar specifies 60 (immediate) and 40 > (delayed), i.e. if the total sum of the fees in the create request is > sufficient, but the individual amounts don't match? No. Each fee involved would need to be equal or over the fee required by the server. > At the very least, I'd leave it up to a server's policy to accept fees > which are higher than the actually assessed fees. I do suggest that the text says something like the following only (only make clear that fees must be sufficient, but don't specify what happens if they are above the required value): "A server MUST reject a transform command if client supplied fee values for the fees involved in the transaction are lower than the server requires" (in better english ;) Alex _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
