Re: [eppext] New Version Notification for draft-brown-epp-fees-06.txt

Pat Moroney <pmoroney@name.com> Mon, 07 December 2015 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <pmoroney@name.com>
X-Original-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90F9F1AD35D for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 13:54:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iy9UJwOV6n6o for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 13:53:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x233.google.com (mail-qk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35E191AD35B for <eppext@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2015 13:53:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qkdp187 with SMTP id p187so1455895qkd.1 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:53:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=name-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=JxPnzaRRFdXF9UDSAjbGR0/bqa1c6KohMsJYQdYYtwk=; b=TmULQ+r/Asn49s36CDSJH4rprbmCWIBKPKEvIT/bu2hnpQoOAK+5vt1KwKYkV1BAnI jF6chZGHUSMq7YXdDWC0VWafQGRWuw2qxUCiCT8RtUV/dj3FRWQjUmV9TEucqkW2I3D4 XVm9RUn2gDFV9+6K0enyksrADUqU2EHlJtpD57jpdAdMpX9qkLaPkPNC4rWh2ByPoaOZ qh959w5+LUuGnBuXQqeLfhDEk/pLFIkbaVLv5q2ttllvxa64eE+SPYE/xN4wsExsmDqd rbGug3hmRHJG5GRvy3+6q9zejyAFTmsOSgA8CtBRJSj51Jgzs74+hUpN310DlSid97zY GtkA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=JxPnzaRRFdXF9UDSAjbGR0/bqa1c6KohMsJYQdYYtwk=; b=dRwrwjXxKm3/35181IZ0vqVxOcokionINKuD6Zb9kmi8jE5momCC/mOGQDJqp6L9p+ XDVxIhwtswth4ddANcpJoKq/CxByGLYgfMTeqSSpJNKocFSoN6g2v6OxOHME6zKzrvke kI2GcMsDfzAy3xCbGg/ANeOqc6fob28mec5HdcOqVN7fKnkXsrIyC36gatbDr4e4eNwb BpUwGUKtYFHA+XZYZa2lpe8+UCoPErbDlRhHHg+9/sq2cus7/SaE1VeupV+5kizr60xI 9KAU0dR4UHkPPbyDSAiy2P8n4hbdI4u15vNxuc5G6RAQpUVrMC3GcHuNuQnCw0B8Sr6a cgBw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk+GgHWLuFXYlaPci0ULu4TFjVDz9HWGi97AKA4IDhvVq+ZwXRB7agt+jdh1DCN/RFROp+p1Juya0KsSK5mgIag5189qMtPjDUcbpqXxZ0bLbHacDk=
X-Received: by 10.13.200.134 with SMTP id k128mr48886ywd.62.1449525234069; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:53:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3e66897b2c554706980f6973c953c43e@ka-mbx02.SIDN.local>
In-Reply-To: <3e66897b2c554706980f6973c953c43e@ka-mbx02.SIDN.local>
From: Pat Moroney <pmoroney@name.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 21:53:44 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+GUe4-rn-whWRK4Cw1CLDe7TTLZhsyT_BZd+W_hvrvFd8aKLw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marc Groeneweg <Marc.Groeneweg@sidn.nl>, "eppext@ietf.org" <eppext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=001a114d3a1aabe143052655e4a4
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/3AjLJjJS5l4KUyauZWr5dkzLPic>
Subject: Re: [eppext] New Version Notification for draft-brown-epp-fees-06.txt
X-BeenThere: eppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPPEXT <eppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eppext>, <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eppext/>
List-Post: <mailto:eppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext>, <mailto:eppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 21:54:02 -0000

James, Marc,

Currently for our check commands sent for searches, this is what we request
for fees:
create command for 1 year in the current phase
renew command for 1 year in the GA phase
create command for 1 year in the GA phase if the current phase is sunrise
or landrush.
create command for 1 year in the landrush phase if the current phase is
sunrise.

We never request a fee for a domain that is not included in the check
command.

We do this because we calculate prices for each of these in our search
results. Removing the ability to get this data in a check response will
require us to perform multiple commands for searches, which will always be
slower then performing a single command that gets the same information.

The check command is the only command that operates on non-existent
objects. Combining that with the fact that the check command can return the
availability of multiple domains in a single command makes it better suited
to return data that is necessary for search results.
Modifying the info command to respond without an error when an object does
not exist upsets the idealist in me more then returning more information in
the check command. Also the idea of sending additional multiple millions
of info commands per day upsets the pragmatic in me.

Performing a fee check on a domain that does not exist happens a couple of
orders of magnitude more times then performing a fee check on a domain that
exists. That is why removing the extension from the info command wasn't a
big deal.
In our case, performing an availability check without performing these fee
checks never happens, so removing the extension from the check command
would be a big deal.

Thanks,
-Pat

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 2:13 AM Marc Groeneweg <Marc.Groeneweg@sidn.nl>
wrote:

> Pat, James, etal.,
>
>
>
> I have to agree with James on this one. Shouldn’t we create a simple check
> for checking availability of a domain name (as supposed) extended with the
> current fee (given the period the registry/domain phase is in). And extend
> the info command with more complex fee information. The perceived response
> time for a check command is very, very small ‘cause its such a small, and
> powerful command.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Marc
>
>
>
> *From:* EppExt [mailto:eppext-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Gould,
> James
> *Sent:* vrijdag 4 december 2015 23:55
> *To:* Pat Moroney
> *Cc:* Roger D Carney; eppext@ietf.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [eppext] New Version Notification for
> draft-brown-epp-fees-06.txt
>
>
>
> Pat,
>
>
>
> You don’t have an issue with applying a common list of commands and
> periods across the list of objects in the check command?  Was your plan
> with draft-brown-epp-fees-06 to include multiple <fee:object> elements with
> the same <fee:objID> value, but with different <fee:command> and
> <fee:period> values to obtain a fee table or a set of fees for a domain?
> My main concern is overloading the use of the check command for something
> that looks and feels like a query (info) interface.  It just feels odd to
> leverage the extended check command to get fee information for existing
> domain names.  My idealist side is really starting to get concerned with
> the mixing of the availability check with a fee query service.  It would be
> best to keep the check simple and provide for a limited set of fee
> information (one command and period along with the domain availability) as
> a true extension of the availability check to quickly provide the
> availability and create fee for each available object or provide a fee
> table for each available object (billable commands and fees by period
> ranges).  A more powerful query interface could be provided to support more
> elaborate searches, which is best with the info command and response that
> was removed in draft-brown-epp-fees-05.  I realize that it is preferred for
> everything to be provided in a single command and response, but the speed
> and simplicity of the check is really being put at risk.
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
>
>
>
> *James Gould *Distinguished Engineer
> jgould@Verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> VerisignInc.com
>
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Pat Moroney <pmoroney@name.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> James,
>
>
>
> The pragmatist version is of course favorable to me, but the ability to
> ask for fees relating to multiple commands and/or phases is incredibly
> useful. Without that ability we would still have to send multiple commands
> since we also request the fees for renewals as well as registrations when
> we perform a check. This allows us to provide pricing for purchasing and
> give our customers an idea of the renewal pricing that they will see next
> year. Multiple phases is also useful that way we can calculate the price
> for pre-registrations and pre-landrush while in the sunrise phase with only
> one command.
>
>
>
> So removing the <fee:objID> objects and having a <fee:period> and one or
> more <fee:command> and optionally many <fee:period> elements that apply to
> the list of objects referenced in the check command. The response format
> can stay the same. Would that be your pragmatic suggestion?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Pat
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 12:11 PM Gould, James <JGould@verisign.com> wrote:
>
> Pat & Roger,
>
>
>
> Let me clarify from two different perspectives:
>
>
>
> Idealist:
>
> The fee information really doesn’t follow the semantics of a check, but
> follows the semantics of an info.  The check command is setup as a
> container of boolean checks of the existence or availability of something
> (domain, claim, contact identifier, etc.).  The info command provides the
> query information for general information.  The fee extension is not asking
> for the existence or availability of something, but is asking for fee
> information given query inputs.  The query inputs may be invalid, so one of
> my questions is what should the server return for each of the invalid
> inputs (objID, objURI, objID, element, currency, command, and period)?  The
> check command should be simple and fast, where extending it with additional
> query or separate check information runs the risk of making it complex and
> slow.
>
>
>
> Pragmatist:
>
> If a fee is needed for every domain check, then we need a mechanism to
> support fee information as an extension to check.  To keep it a true
> extension, the only elements needed in the <fee:check> element should be
> <fee:currency>, <fee:command>, and <fee:period> that apply across all of
> the check identifiers (<domain:name>) included under the check command
> (<domain:check>).  This would result in a check response including a
> <fee:chkData> element that matches what is currently defined
> in draft-brown-epp-fees-06, except the <fee:objID> elements would always
> correspond to a response identifier (<domain:name>).  If there is invalid
> input provided with <fee:currency>, <fee:command>, or <fee:period>, the
> check command should fail with a specified EPP error code (my guess is
> 2306, since invalid input would be based on server policy).
>
>
>
> I’m assuming that the pragmatist is favorable over the idealist, but the
> idealist in me has a real concern of overloading the check command /
> response as a pattern to combine commands / responses.
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
>
>
>
> *James Gould *Distinguished Engineer
> jgould@Verisign.com <http://jgould@verisign.com/>
>
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> VerisignInc.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
>
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Pat Moroney <pmoroney@name.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I have to agree with Roger. The vast majority of check commands that we
> send are triggered by a customer searching on our website. To create the
> search results we need both the availability and the fee information in
> order to calculate the pricing. We can currently get that with one check
> command, but if it is split up our command volume will almost double.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Pat
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 9:20 AM Roger D Carney <rcarney@godaddy.com> wrote:
>
> Good Morning,
>
>
>
> Interesting idea Jim. Though not completely disagreeing with your premise
> that the check and fee have different purposes, let me play devil’s
> advocate here with some knowledge on the separate claims check in mind as
> well. Different individual purposes maybe but when looking at the varied
> data flow scenarios (how is this data used and presented to the end
> customer), I believe most clients would see the purposes aligned well.
>
>
>
> I have heard from many people with the same question about claims: “Why do
> we have to make two calls to see if a domain has a claim associated to it,
> can’t they just tell us in the check?”
>
>
>
> I am guessing the same question will come up if it is a separate call for
> fee information as well. People may make the argument that the additional
> claims check is only needed for a specific period of time (except for those
> doing indefinite claims). I think everyone would agree this same argument
> does not apply for fees and as we see more and more varied wholesale models
> I think an integrated call is more natural and becomes more necessary.
>
>
>
> Again, as these concepts align well from a flow perspective and as the
> probability of expanding wholesaling models increases, I believe most
> clients would prefer (demand) one call over multiple calls.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* EppExt [mailto:eppext-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Gould,
> James
> *Sent:* Friday, December 04, 2015 7:37 AM
> *To:* Gavin Brown
> *Cc:* eppext@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [eppext] New Version Notification for
> draft-brown-epp-fees-06.txt
>
>
>
> Gavin,
>
>
>
> In reviewing draft-brown-epp-fees-06, I have the following feedback:
>
>
>
>    1. The fee check extension is really not a good fit for extension of
>    the available check.  They have different purposes and there is really no
>    relationship between the two, where the availability check can include a
>    completely different set of domain names from getting the fee extension.
>    My recommendation is to separate the two and define the fee check as a new
>    verb similar to the claims check in draft-ietf-eppext-launchphase.  Another
>    option is truly extend the object identifiers (e.g. domain:names) in the
>    check command with a set of fee attributes to get the fee information for.
>    Have the extension only specify the command and the optional currency and
>    fee that applies to all of the names in the availability check command.
>    The response would include the same list of object identifiers in the
>    extension, but it would be a one-to-one relationship.  In this way there is
>    no need for the “objURI” attribute, the <fee:objID> element, and
>    <fee:objID> “element” attribute in the check command, since the object and
>    identifying element is already defined by the availability check object
>    that is being extended.
>    2. What should be returned when the client passes invalid data in the
>    check command for the the “objURI” attribute (e.g. “urn:made:up:uri”), the
>    <fee:objID> element (e.g. invalid domain name), the “element” attribute of
>    <fee:objID> (e.g. “madeup”), the <fee:currency> element (e.g. “MUP”), and
>    the <fee:period> element (e.g. “99" when max is “10”)?  An invalid
>    <fee:command> is covered by not returning the fee information, but it’s
>    unclear whether the server should return an error or not return the fee
>    information for other invalid data.  To follow the semantics of a check
>    command and response, my recommendation is to add an “avail” attribute to
>    either <fee:cd> or <fee:objID> to explicitly indicate that the fee
>    information is available along with an optional <fee:reason> to indicate
>    the reason that the fee information is not available.  The reason the fee
>    information is not available for a particular object could be due to the
>    passing of invalid input in the check command <fee:object> element.  If you
>    went with a single set of fee elements in the check command that is applied
>    to all of the object identifiers in the availability check, then an invalid
>    fee element could result in a failure of the check command itself instead
>    of being an error (e.g. not available) on a per domain basis.
>    3. Since the check response supports returning a “0.00” value to
>    indicate no fee, doesn’t make sense to do the same with all transform
>    command responses?
>
>
>
>
>
> —
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
>
>
>
> *James Gould *Distinguished Engineer
> jgould@Verisign.com <http://jgould@verisign.com/>
>
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> VerisignInc.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
>
>
>
> On Nov 4, 2015, at 5:58 PM, Gavin Brown <gavin.brown@centralnic.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Changes from 05 to 06:
>
>   1.  The specification is now object-agnostic, but works with RFC5731
>       [RFC5731] domains by default.
>
>   2.  Renamed the <fee:domain> element to <fee:object>.  Added the
>       "objURI" attribute.
>
>   3.  Removed the default value for the "refundable" attribute of
>       <fee:fee> elements, and added text about how clients should
>       handle such cases.  Added similar text to the documentation of
>       the "grace-period" attribute.
>
>   4.  Removed references to the defunct <info> command syntax.
>
>   5.  "MUST" requirements regarding documentation have been changed to
>       "must".
>
>   6.  Created separate "Correlation between Refundability and Grace
>       Periods" section describing how the "refundable" and "grace-
>       period" attributes work together.
>
> Feedback welcome as always!
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-brown-epp-fees-06.txt
> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:52:30 -0800
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> To: Gavin Brown <gavin.brown@centralnic.com>om>, Jothan Frakes
> <jothan@jothan.com>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-brown-epp-fees-06.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Gavin Brown and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-brown-epp-fees
> Revision: 06
> Title: Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
> (EPP)
> Document date: 2015-11-04
> Group: Individual Submission
> Pages: 36
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-brown-epp-fees-06.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brown-epp-fees/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brown-epp-fees-06
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-brown-epp-fees-06
>
> Abstract:
>   This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
>   extension mapping for registry fees.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
> --
> Gavin Brown
> Chief Technology Officer
> CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC)
> Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services
> for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries
> https://www.centralnic.com/
>
> CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with
> company number 8576358. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London,
> EC2R 6AR.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EppExt mailing list
> EppExt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EppExt mailing list
> EppExt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
>
> --
>
> -Pat Moroney
>
> Sr. Software Engineer
>
> Name.com <http://name.com/>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1GKGXXF12c
>
> 720-663-0025
>
> <image001.png><image001.png>_______________________________________________
>
>
> EppExt mailing list
> EppExt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
>
> --
>
> -Pat Moroney
>
> Sr. Software Engineer
>
> Name.com
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1GKGXXF12c
>
> 720-663-0025
>
>
> <BF09FAA4-32D8-46E0-BED0-CD72F43BD6E0[81].png><BF09FAA4-32D8-46E0-BED0-CD72F43BD6E0[81].png>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EppExt mailing list
> EppExt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext
>
-- 
-Pat Moroney
Sr. Software Engineer
Name.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1GKGXXF12c
720-663-0025