Hello, On 8/18/21 14:57, Gould, James wrote:
> Martin, > > If you do return the extension in a poll response it should be included in > the greeting services. My recommendation is to fully implement the registry > fee extension along with this so not to cause client confusion. Agreed, adding it to the greeting and then only implement it where it isn't really expected (as per this version of the RFC) sounds like bad practice. Though I wonder which price the implementation of <fee:check> would even return for the "renew" command if its price is dependent on a property of the domain (signed/unsigned) that isn't known at the time of the check... I'm usually not a fan of proprietary extensions, but this sounds like a case where it seems prudent to introduce one. Best regards, Thomas -- TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES® is a product of: Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH Technologiepark Phone: +49 231 9703-222 Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 D-44227 Dortmund E-Mail: supp...@tango-rs.com Germany _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
