Re: [eppext] Extension Registration Request: Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)

[Gavin Brown <[e-mail]>]

On 11/02/2015 02:19, Ning Kong wrote:

> #2 IMO, the extension of <check> is not necessary. It seems that the extended <check> is a little overused. I think the extension of <info> is enough.

There has been some discussion of this point on this list; there seemed
to be no consensus for using <check> only or <info> only. In the
interests of pleasing the most number of people, I chose to support both.

I would be happy to revisit this question again as my personal
preference would be to only support one query command.

> #3 I’m afraid this extension may increase the risk of Security and Privacy. The fee information of domain registration is sensitive and maybe trade secrets for most registrars and registries.  Because different registrars would get different price based on their each commercial contract. So usually the fee information can only be known by the business people. But if the EPP is extended with the fee function, the sensitive information about fee may be accessed by the technical guys even through the log file of EPP system.

This is an interesting point. I will think about adding a Security
Considerations section to the draft which addresses this concern.

G.

-- 
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.