The Chairs have reviewed these last set of changes and believe them all
to be editorial.
As there have been no objections to resubmitting these documents the
Chairs will do so shortly.
Thanks to all,
Antoin and Jim
On 19 Jun 2020, at 9:47, James Galvin wrote:
REGEXT WG,
I’m sure you r
James Galvin has requested publication of
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response-12 as Proposed Standard on behalf of
the REGEXT working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-partial-response/
Antoin Verschuren has requested publication of
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging-14 as Proposed Standard on behalf of
the REGEXT working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-sorting-and-paging/
___
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 b
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
Hello James,
On 6/26/20 16:18, Gould, James wrote:
> 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.
In my example, the fee extension was passed, but only asking for the
*renew* fee (wh
Thomas,
Yes, to cover the corner case, avail="0" is the best response when the client
does not include "create" in the fee extension of the check command of a
premium domain name. Without knowing the create fee of the premium, the create
will likely fail, thus avail="0" is the correct answer.
@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
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
Alissa, will you please check the current version of the data-escrow
document < https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-data-escrow/
> and see if Gustavo's changes address your concern? And if not,
please work with Gustavo to get it sorted out. Thanks.
Barry
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at
10 matches
Mail list logo
