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

"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> Fri, 06 February 2015 13:40 UTC

Return-Path: <shollenbeck@verisign.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 9CF691A1AAC for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 05:40:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.191
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.191 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01] autolearn=ham
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 DeStEyNfBIyq for <eppext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 05:40:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod6og125.obsmtp.com (exprod6og125.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 759C01A0367 for <eppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 05:40:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brn1lxmailout02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([72.13.63.42]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob125.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKVNTEW/SeCZKTWpQGgbtU6Syme13sLaUb@postini.com; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 05:40:44 PST
Received: from brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.173.152.205]) by brn1lxmailout02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t16DehEp009427 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <eppext@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 08:40:43 -0500
Received: from BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) by brn1wnexcas01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 08:40:42 -0500
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "eppext@ietf.org" <eppext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Extension Registration Request: Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Thread-Index: AdBCEn+vvcyzjjByRt6JTgZTR3aSZA==
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 13:40:41 +0000
Message-ID: <831693C2CDA2E849A7D7A712B24E257F49F3C5DD@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.173.152.4]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eppext/PXa7may3yEqlZ3m7gjgMTy4glyE>
Subject: [eppext] Extension Registration Request: Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:40:46 -0000

IANA has received a request to register an EPP extension titled "Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)". Per RFC 7451 they have requested designated expert review of the request. The list of designated experts appointed by the IESG can be found IANA's registry web page:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/epp-extensions/epp-extensions.xhtml#epp-extensions-1

This is the form received by IANA:

-----BEGIN FORM-----
Name of Extension:
Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)

Document Status: Informational

Reference: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brown-epp-fees

Registrant Name and Email Address:
Gavin Brown, <gavin.brown@centralnic.com>

TLDs: any

IPR Disclosure: None

Status: Active

Notes: None

-----END FORM-----

As specified in RFC 7451 the discussion of this request is to take place on this mailing list. So let's discuss it.

I have no issue with the extension itself. Given that this request refers to an existing Internet-Draft document, I believe it would be more appropriate for the document to include an IANA Considerations section that includes a request to register the extension if the document becomes an RFC. My recommendation to IANA would be to hold off on processing the request until the document is either submitted to and approved by the IESG or it is published outside the IETF process.

Would the other designated experts please share the results of your individual evaluations in this thread.

Scott