Thomas, The goal is to cover the case of a client not passing the fee extension at all, with the assumption that the fee extension would reference the create command. It's simpler to make the case based on the existence or non-existence of the fee extension in the check command, but there may be cases were the renew fee matches the create fee. It's up to the server to determine whether a particular domain will fail on create without the client having the correct non-standard fee. I realize that there are corner cases where the client may know the fee, based on assuming that the create fee matches the renew fee, or the fees are provided out-of-band to EPP, but to cover the intent of the RFC the safest approach is to return avail="0" for a premium domain if the fee extension is not passed in the check command.
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. -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 6/26/20, 9:46 AM, "regext on behalf of Thomas Corte (TANGO support)" <regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of thomas.co...@knipp.de> wrote: Hello James, thanks for your reply, I'll go back to check out the respective thread. On 6/25/20 21:40, Gould, James wrote: > JG - The RFC only specifies that the fee extension needs to be provided to support the create command, so checking the renewal fee is not applicable. So, just to be sure, to the following check for a *renew* fee of a premium domain, the server should respond with avail="0" (as the check merely asks for a renewal price, not a creation price)? <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";> <command> <check> <domain:check xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0"> <domain:name>premium-a1.tango</domain:name> </domain:check> </check> <extension> <fee:check xmlns:fee="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:fee-1.0"> <fee:command name="renew"> <fee:period unit="y">1</fee:period> </fee:command> </fee:check> </extension> <clTRID>e1f8b4cd61f84469436bf16585f976b3</clTRID> </command> </epp> While the following check asking for a creation price should be responded with avail="1"? <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";> <command> <check> <domain:check xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0"> <domain:name>premium-a1.tango</domain:name> </domain:check> </check> <extension> <fee:check xmlns:fee="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:fee-1.0"> <fee:command name="create"> <fee:period unit="y">1</fee:period> </fee:command> </fee:check> </extension> <clTRID>e1f8b4cd61f84469436bf16585f976b3</clTRID> </command> </epp> Just trying to clarify this, as the RFC isn't all that clear about which exact conditions the fee check extension must meet in order to qualify for a positive availability check of free premium domains. Best regards, Thomas -- TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES® Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH Thomas Corte Technologiepark Phone: +49 231 9703-222 Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 D-44227 Dortmund E-Mail: thomas.co...@knipp.de Germany _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://secure-web.cisco.com/1d4W9Y-JRwUyOsQ5LPwv-1m17UOtveZT4o2_R0VWZfpbiTqJanWb6E-ksO15h7ClxoQY3q9NGnpriFo71j-Jz3SWN4WQcemobVYCyNQp3gp_mAdwxpm-wlzqcs8vUSfe2t-A7ZIYAlHo9X9Bx1otNjXIk8Zq-YRdB6RWikXkuNjOFtRnO2RX89P5ciZ5jM7_thR1kE8aILbzhJMq0uWRyPbLAFIAf3ZOwPH5IZ4oUskSUB4se2h6c4ZgbpfMzl0P0ZPvKG2RzjnF3PXa-m62nDg/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
