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

Hi Scott and all,

As one of the designated experts, I read this request and draft. I have some comments as follows.

#1 The document status is Informational according to the request, but the intended status of draft is Experimental.

#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.

#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.

Regards,
Ning

> 在 2015年2月6日，下午9:40，Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com> 写道：
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EppExt mailing list
> EppExt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext