Patrick, The classification is defined at the object level, where in general a domain is either a “standard” domain or a non-“standard” domain (e.g., “premium”, “discount”), but there is an issue with non-“standard” classification objects that is not handled by the <fee:class> element. Placing the <fee:class> element under the <fee:command> element doesn’t match the definition of the classification as an object-level element, so it is best placed under the <fee:cd> element. Two registrars (I believe) have expressed the need to know whether a non-“standard” object is using a standard fee for one or more of the commands. The example given is a “premium” domain that uses a non-standard fee for the create command, but a standard fee for the renew command. In this case, the <fee:command name=”create”> element would include standard=”0” and the <fee:command name=”renew”> would include standard=”1”. For a “standard” domain, all of the <fee:command> elements would include standard=”1”, since all of the commands follow the “standard” fee schedule.
Clients can use the <fee:class> as a hint of the fee schedule used for the object and to drive whether the fees are required to be passed with billable commands for non-“standard” objects. The “standard” fee schedule should be stable and be applicable for a large set of objects. A non-“standard” classification fee schedule can be variable and be applicable to a smaller set of objects. The use of the “standard” attribute at the command level provides the client with more information on the drive their decisions. On the server-side it will require comparing the fee schedule of non-“standard” classifications to the “standard” classification, so there is certainly added complexity. If you have another proposal to address this use case, please share it. Thanks, — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer jgo...@verisign.com 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 11/20/17, 10:43 PM, "regext on behalf of Patrick Mevzek" <regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of p...@dotandco.com> wrote: On Fri, Nov 17, 2017, at 00:39, Gould, James wrote: > 2. Add a new optional “standard” boolean attribute to the > <fee:command> element, with the default value of “0” (or “false”), that > indicates whether the fees for the command and period matches the > “standard” classification fees for the command and period. I am not very happy with the addition of yet another element. The extension is getting more and more complex. I believe that such attribute is not completely unrelated to the class value, so there is something related to the model that does not feel right to me. This is in fact seen in this sentence: > b. All of the <fee:command> elements for a “standard” classification > domain name, would have standard=”1”. It shows the two values are not independant, so there is a kind of duplication of information. I think that in that case having the class element per command instead of per domain would be a better choice than adding an attribute. -- Patrick Mevzek p...@dotandco.com _______________________________________________ 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
