We actually request fees for future phases so we can sell pre-registrations
and the like. Removing all references to launch phases would prevent that
ability and make things much more complex and prone to errors.
Thanks,
-Pat
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:41 AM Thomas Corte <thomas.co...@knipp.de> wrote:
> 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
> <+49%20231%209703222>
> Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 Fax: +49 231 9703-200
> <+49%20231%209703200>
> D-44227 Dortmund E-Mail: supp...@tango-rs.com
> Germany
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
>
--
-Pat Moroney
Sr. Software Engineer
Name.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1GKGXXF12c
720-663-0025
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
