Hi all, <fee:class> should be under <fee:command>. I have the same points than Pat. We do not need to know if a price of a single command *COULD* be non-standard. Thats the same as completely skipping <fee:class>. Indeed, what I really need, is to know if a single fee is "standard" or "non-standard" priced, because we do a completely different processing of premium and standard (or promotion) fees. While registries had premium fees for create, renew and transfer, this wasn't a big thing, but since most registries switch to premium create with standard renew fees, we need to differentiate. So, I would suggest to clarify section 3.7 and change it to fee level.
To save some bytes in the check response, <fee:class> with "standard" could be assumed as default and therefore optional, but mandatory if non-standard (premium, promotion, etc.). Another solution would be to not transmit standard fees in the fee extension at all. Thanks, Andreas Am 16.11.2017 um 04:44 schrieb Gould, James: > Pat, > > > > I will go back to the definition of the classification, which is an > object-level attribute (e.g., “standard” or “premium” domain). Each > classification has a fee schedule (commands and periods) that is assigned at > the object-level, where the combination of the command and the period has a > fee and not a classification. The classification (<fee:class>) should be > placed in the location that reflects the definition to remove any confusion, > which is under the <fee:cd> element. > > > > — > > > _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
