Hello Jothan, On 6/26/20 17:15, Jothan Frakes wrote:
> @Tomas I could see someone submitting a non-conforming fee extension in > the check command to trick the registry into providing basic availability > or taken of a name. > > Possible: perhaps > Probable: unlikely > > You make a good point that the respective command, especially billable > events, should perhaps check that the appropriate fee extension was > sent. Depending upon the registry implementation, this could > theoretically work, but a registrar would still have to pay the > respective registry designated fee for a create/renew/transfer, Sure, the subsequent domain create attempt would still fail if the wrong command was sent in the extension, even if the availability check was "tricked" into confirming availability. > I am working very hard to imagine why someone would go to the trouble of > sending the wrong fee extension with a command if they were going to be > sending one at all. Agreed, it's more work to get this wrong than right. We'll go with the John's lax interpretation in our implementation and will report avail="1" for premium names as long as the check command contains *any* fee extension whatsoever. 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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
