A group met at IETF-102 to discuss the question of inclusion of the “standard”
attribute in the draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees.
1. Attendees
* Roger Carney – GoDaddy
* Jim Galvin - Afilias
* James Gould – Verisign
* Jody Kolker (remote) – GoDaddy
* Patrick Mevzek (remote) – Dot and Co
* Wadson Tseng - Afilias
* Rick Wilhelm – Verisign
* Joseph Chiu-Kit Yee – Afilias
2. Notes
* Discussed the background of the issue
i. Roger
posted the IETF-100 open question to the mailing list
* The appropriate level of the <fee:class> element (<fee:command>
or <fee:cd>)
ii. Pat
Moroney raised the concern of handling a non-standard create with a standard
renew
iii. Jim Gould
provided a proposed solution with inclusion of the “standard” attribute
* Proposal moved the <fee:class> element to the <fee:cd> element
and added the optional “standard” boolean attribute with a default of “false”
* A proposed XML schema and sample XML was posted in an attachment
iv. Pat Moroney
agreed with the proposal
v. Patrick
Mevzek and Alex Mayrhofer advocated against the “standard” attribute
vi. Roger added
the “standard” attribute in draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-09, but to the check
command instead of the check response
* The incorrect location of the “standard” attribute was
identified by the document shepherd when reviewing this issue
* Discussed Alex Mayrhofer’s Feedback provided offline
i. I did a
quick review of my own message from back then, and I still stand by that
opinion. The basis of that is that we should not artificially complicate things
for registrars, because that could hurt adoption and interoperability.
ii. I don’t
bother about optional attributes in responses. it’s more about the required
inclusion of the EPP extension for transactions which would not require the
extension in the first place.
iii. In the case
the registry requires Fee Extension for the transfer, non-Fee-supporting
registrars would be unable to transfer, even though the price is identical to
standard names. I want to prevent that. Essentially – when the *price* for a
transaction is equal to the standard price of the TLD, don’t require the
extension.
iv. Note – the
group viewed the handling of the transfer of non-standard (premium) domain
names as registry policy and independent to the inclusion of the “standard”
attribute.
* Discussed the purpose of the “standard” attribute
i. The group
viewed the inclusion of the “standard” attribute as in line with the server
data model (classification is an object-level attribute), and providing more
information without a change in behavior
* Result
i. Agreed to
include the “standard” attribute but move it from the check command
(commandType) to the check response (commandDataType)
* Action Items
i. Jim Gould
to present the result of the meeting at the IETF-102 REGEXT meeting for
discussion
ii. Jim Gould
to post the meeting notes to the REGEXT mailing list
iii. Roger
Carney to post draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-12 that moves the “standard”
attribute from the check command (commandType) to the check response
(commandDataType).
Please let me know if I missed anything.
Thanks,
—
JG
[cid:image001.png@01D255E2.EB933A30]
James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com<http://verisigninc.com/>
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
