Good Morning,
Thanks for your comments Benjamin, please see my responses below, a new revision will be published shortly to address issues brought up in this latest round of comments. Thanks Roger -----Original Message----- From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 11:26 AM To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>> Cc: draft-ietf-regext-epp-f...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-regext-epp-f...@ietf.org>; James Gould <jgo...@verisign.com<mailto:jgo...@verisign.com>>; regext-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:regext-cha...@ietf.org>; jgo...@verisign.com<mailto:jgo...@verisign.com>; regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org> Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Notice: This email is from an external sender. Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-18: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I think (at least with the present formulation) we need greater clarity on when the "it's up to server policy whether to include, but that policy must be the same for all transactions" elements (<fee:balance> and <fee:creditLimit>) are returned, as at present there seems to be an internal inconsistency in the text. Section 3.5 and 3.6 just talk about including them "in responses to all 'transform' or billable commands", but then we have more qualified text such as (but not limited to) in Section 5.2.5 that only has <fee:updData> (and its children) included when the <update> has been processed successfully. So, are <fee:balance> and <fee:creditLimit> supposed to be included in error responses or not? [RDC] I am not sure I see the real issue as I don’t read a conflict here (technically 5.2.5 [and others] don’t say “<fee:updData> (and its children)” can only be included in successful responses, the sections just don’t discuss if “<fee:updData> (and its children)” should/shouldn’t be included in errors. I would assume a server would most likely not return these data on errors, but I also don’t see harm if they do and the extension allows for both. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It might be helpful to note somewhere that <fee:cd> stands for "check data", as per stock EPP, since we use the term a few times before we get to the <fee:chkData> context and its definition. [RDC] “(check data)” will be added to section 5.1.1 where <fee:cd> is defined. Section 1 Given the expansion of the DNS namespace, and the proliferation of novel business models, it is desirable to provide a method for EPP It's not clear to me whether all readers (whether now or in ten years) will have the context to appreciate what is meant by these background clauses. [RDC] I think that is true that not all clients will have the context to appreciate it, but the proliferation of novel business models did lead to the creation of the extension, so it seems like the context is relevant and needed. Section 3.3 When querying for fee information using the <check> command, the <fee:period> element is used to indicate the units to be added to the registration period of objects by the <create>, <renew> and <transfer> commands. This element is derived from the <domain:period> element described in [RFC5731]. The word "units" here is really confusing me. Even after reading the rest of the document (and 5731's definition of periodType) it still feels like there's some words missing here. [RDC] Section 3.3 will be updated for clarity: “When querying for fee information using the <check> command, the <fee:period> element is used to indicate the period measured in years or months, with the appropriate units specified using the “unit” attribute, to be added to the registration period of objects by the <create>, <renew> and <transfer> commands.” Section 3.4 A server MAY respond with multiple <fee:fee> and <fee:credit> elements in the same response. In such cases, the net fee or credit applicable to the transaction is the arithmetic sum of the values of each of the <fee:fee> and/or <fee:credit> elements. This amount applies to the total additional validity period applied to the object (where applicable) rather than to any incremental unit. "unit" here is also confusing to me, though less so. I think what's going on here is just the common-sense "the sum of all fees/credits applies for the conceptual 'sum' of all the indicated registry operations taken together", in which case I might suggest to s/incremental unit/individual component of the transaction/. [RDC] Section 3.4 will be updated for clarity: “A server MAY respond with multiple <fee:fee> and <fee:credit> elements in the same response. In such cases, the net fee or credit applicable to the transaction is the arithmetic sum of the values of each of the <fee:fee> and/or <fee:credit> elements. This amount applies to the total additional validity period applied to the object (where applicable).” description: an OPTIONAL attribute which provides a human-readable description of the fee. Servers should provide documentation on the possible values of this attribute, and their meanings. An OPTIONAL "lang" attribute MAY be present to identify the language of the returned text and has a default value of "en" (English). I assume we're reusing the "lang" semantics from 5730 (which in turn relies on 4646), but it's probably worth being explicit about it. [RDC] “Language identifiers MUST be structured as documented in [RFC4646].” Will be added to the end of the paragraph. Section 3.4.3 If a <fee:fee> element has a "grace-period" attribute then it MUST also be refundable and the "refundable" attribute MUST be true. If the "refundable" attribute of a <fee:fee> element is false then it MUST NOT have a "grace-period" attribute. If a client receives a response that contravenes these requirements, what should it do? [RDC] I think as with any non-conformance the client should notify the server of RFC non-compliance and have the server fix the issue. Section 3.5, 3.6 For these elements that the server MUST include in all responses if it chooses to include them in (any) responses, do we expect that to be global server policy, or potentially tailored to individual clients? (Also, I'm vaguely curious how much it could increase the response footprint, not that XML is a terribly concise representation to start with.) [RDC] Inclusion of these elements is up to server policy. A server may define a client-specific setting for inclusion or exclusion of this information, but that is unlikely and out-of-scope for the extension. The EPP packets in general are relatively small (<1k). The increase in size is not impactful. Section 3.7 If a server makes use of this element, it should provide clients with a list of all the values that the element may take via an out-of-band channel. Servers MUST NOT use values which do not appear on this list. I think we generally dislike to rely on out-of-band channels to quite this extent, though it's not clearly wrong for this case. I'm somewhat curious (not necessarily to include in the document) what existing out-of-band channels for this look like, though. [RDC] There are several “channels”: contract, report, spreadsheet, reference manuals, etc. Section 4 The server MUST return avail="0" in its response to a <check> command for any object in the <check> command that does not include the <fee:check> extension for which the server would likewise fail a domain <create> command when no <fee> extension is provided for that same object. nit: this wording makes it sound like avail="0" is scoped to the object, as opposed to the check data. So maybe s/for any object/if any object/? [RDC] The <check> command in RFC 5731 supports checking the availability of multiple objects, where RFC 5730 does not specify whether the <check> command is associated with one or more objects. The language in section 4 addresses both one object or many objects by using “for any object”. Changing “for any object” to “if any object” will not cover the many object case. If a server receives a <check> command from a client, which results in no possible fee combination but where a fee is required, the server MUST set the "avail" attribute of the <fee:cd> element to false and provide a <fee:reason>. nit: I'm not sure how to interpret "where a fee is required" just given what's in this document. [RDC] Section 4 will be updated to remove “but where a fee is required” as it is not needed. If the currency or total fee provided by the client is less than the server's own calculation of the fee for that command, then the server MUST reject the command with a 2004 "Parameter value range" error. How can a currency be "less than the server's own calculation"? (I assume this is supposed to be "currency is different".) [RDC] Two separate ideas: “currency” or “total fee provided by the client is less than the…” Section 5.1.1 When the server receives a <check> command that includes the extension elements described above, its response MUST contain an <extension> element, which MUST contain a child <fee:chkData> element. The <fee:chkData> element MUST contain a <fee:currency> element and a <fee:cd> for each element referenced in the client <check> command. Can we be more precise about "for each element referenced in the client <check> command"? ("No" is a valid answer.) Specifically, does this apply to the <domain:check> child elements in the <check>, or to the <fee:check> extension elements, or something else? (My guess from the examples is the former.) [RDC] Correct it applies to the <check> child elements. The last sentence will be updated: “The <fee:chkData> element MUST contain a <fee:currency> element and a <fee:cd> element for each object referenced in the client <check> command”. o A <fee:command> element matching each <fee:command> (unless the "avail" attribute of the <fee:cd> if false) that appeared in the corresponding <fee:check> of the client command. This element MAY have the OPTIONAL "standard" attribute, with a default value of "0" (or "false"), which indicates whether the fee matches the fee of the "standard" classification (see section 3.7). This element MAY have the OPTIONAL "phase" and "subphase" attributes, which SHOULD match the same attributes in the corresponding <fee:command> element of the client command if sent by the client. I don't think I see how the SHOULD could be applicable -- doesn't Section 3.8 place tight requirements on server behavior and errors regarding phase/subphase in requests? That is, I think the descriptive "will match" would be appropriate here. [RDC] Agreed, section will be updated. The <fee:command> element(s) MAY have the following child elements: o An OPTIONAL <fee:period> element (as described in Section 3.3), which contains the same unit that appeared in the <fee:period> element of the command. If the value of the preceding <fee:command> element is "restore", this element MUST NOT be included, otherwise it MUST be included. If no <fee:period> appeared in the client command (and the command is not "restore") then the server MUST return its default period value. I think we need some caveat language ("if present"?) for "the same unit that appeared in the <fee:period> element of the command", since that element is OPTIONAL in the command in question. [RDC] Agreed, this section will be updated, changing the first sentence of this bullet to: “An OPTIONAL <fee:period> element (as described in Section 3.3), which contains the same unit, if present, that appeared in the <fee:period> element of the command.” nit: is this the "preceding <fee:command> element" or "parent <fee:command> element"? Also, the rhetorical value of the "OPTIONAL" is unclear, as there's no server choice in the matter -- its presence/absence is fully determined by the <fee:command> value. [RDC] Section will be updated, changing to “parent <fee:command> element”. The “OPTIONAL” indicator reflects what’s defined in the XML schema, where the client will not fail processing the response if the <fee:period> element is not returned. If the "avail" attribute of the <fee:cd> element is true and if no <fee:fee> elements are present in a <fee:command> element, this indicates that no fee will be assessed by the server for this command. If the "avail" attribute is true, then the <fee:command> element MUST NOT contain a <fee:reason> element. In this second quoted paragraph, is this the "avail" attribute only of <fee:command> or does it apply to <fee:cd> as well? [RDC] For clarity this will be updated as: “If the "avail" attribute of the <fee:cd> element is true, then the <fee:command> element MUST NOT contain a <fee:reason> element.” Section 5.2.1 The server MUST fail the <create> command if the <fee:fee> provided by the client is less than the server fee. I think we are more specific about this ("Parameter value range" error) in Section 4, which is also a MUST-level requirement. [RDC] Sentence will be removed, already covered by section 4. It's perhaps a bit anachronous to have a domain-creation example from 1999 when the -00 of this document's precedessor wasn't until 2013. Section 5.2.3 [The examples here are only from 2005; progress!] [RDC] Dates will be updated accordingly. Section 7 Thank you for addressing the points discussed in the secdir review. That said, the text of this section still feels a bit sparse, with it mostly being bare statements without much discussion of the motivation for or consequences of many of the requirements at hand. For example, we could say something about why it's important to provide confidentiality/integrity protection for financial data, say more about what the "needed level of [...] protection" is, and reiterate that the transport protocol has to do so because there are no in-band EPP mechanisms to do so. It would also be fine to reiterate any key considerations from 5730/5731, if there are any that seem particularly relevant (but it's also fine to not do so). Also, I think that it's important to add "peer authentication" to the list of protections provided by the transport -- it's important to know who you're talking to when sending financial information! (Though, the client is just sending its estimate of the server's fee schedule, which is a lot less sensitive than sending its current balance.) [RDC] I don’t think there is a need for this extension to duplicate or attempt to redefine the security defined in RFC 5730.
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
