Alexander,
On 12/07/2017 09:26, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:
> Later during the day yesterday, i
> came up with a very simple requirement that i think would cover my
> concerns regarding mixing in launch phases in the fee document:
>
> - The Fee Extension MUST provide full functionality with
> registries implementations which are unaware of the Launch Phase extension.
Hmm, but how exactly would you define "full functionality" in this
context? Requiring to read each "MAY"/"SHOULD" as a "MUST"?
> I think that pretty much covers it. Everything else would be dangerous
> mixup. My personal preference is still to investigate why exactly the
> „class“ functionality does not cover Thomas‘ use cases anymore, because
> i’d like to see the launch phases be completely disconnected from the
> Fees document.
Old versions of the draft treated the "class" attribute as a pure
*return* value, i.e. it never appeared in any command, just in responses.
Hence we saw it as an option (which we also discussed with Gavin Brown
back then) to return the correct launch phase as a class.
Later versions of the document added the class to the commands, and also
required to use specific class names ("standard") in certain situations.
This would have required an awkward mapping from e.g. the launch phase
name "open" to "standard". At the same time, the draft added dedicated
launch phase support, which gave us a more elegant way to solve our issues.
The more I think about it, the more I agree that launch phases have
indeed no place in the fee extension *at all*. With the changes
introduced yesterday, the fee extension <check> does not provide any
helpful information with regard to launch phases; actually it now even
requires the registrar to have a hunch about which of multiple active
launch phase may be suitable for a name in order to obtain fee information.
My preference would therefore be to either leave the draft as it is, or
the remove all references to launch phases completely.
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: supp...@tango-rs.com
Germany
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
