Re: [eppext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-brown-epp-fees-04.txt

[Roger D Carney <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for bringing this forward Ed!

I agree with Jim and think that we should encourage the author(s) of the "Price Categories Guide" to publish this document as an Informational extension to the Extension Registry.


Thanks
Roger


From: EppExt [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Gould, James
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:26 AM
To: Michael Holloway
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [eppext] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-brown-epp-fees-04.txt

I was the one that proposed that draft-brown-epp-fees be defined as Standards Track based on it being a published Internet Draft, based on the incorporation of community input, and based on interest to implement it by multiple independent parties.  I believe that we will find many extensions that privately exist with overlap.  We too have proprietary extensions that exist that have overlap with draft-brown-epp-fees, but these extensions were not targeted for Standards Track and there is little case for attempting to create competing Standards Track drafts.   In this case I see a lot of overlap between draft-brown-epp-fees and the private Price Categories Guide extension.  My recommendation is to register the Price Categories Guide extension as an Informational extension in the Extension Registry and contribute to the discussion around draft-brown-epp-fees to reconcile the material differences.


-



JG

[cid:image001.png@01D04B5A.F34F6170]

James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
[e-mail]

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

VerisignInc.com<http://VerisignInc.com>

On Feb 18, 2015, at 4:04 AM, Michael Holloway <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Ed, Good point.

The UnitedTLD is also used ZACR, while this extension is in use by CentralNIC, GMO, Charleston, Minds and Machines - albeit they are using varying versions. Ignoring the fact that the big 3 all have their their own alternatives (and 1 or 2 more), these two extensions already have a large coverage. UnitedTLD's extension is much simpler while this one is much more complex (due to registry input to Gavin indicating they want the flexibility).

I do not believe that any registry that has already implemented one or the other will switch, which means both of the extensions will continue to be used even if one were to take the lead.

So is there an argument to propose two standards for the same purpose or do we back the one that pushes in the interest of having a standard? Two standards are better than none which results in several alternative custom extensions, so I would back either or both if they are going down standards track.

Cheers,
Michael



Michael Holloway
Senior Systems Administrator | Com Laude
E: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>




On 02/18/2015 07:01 AM, Ed Pascoe wrote:
While I think this extension is well written and valuable I do have to question if a standards track is appropriate?

The competing version of this is the UnitedTLD "Price Categories Guide" http://rightside.co/fileadmin/downloads/policies/Rightside_Price_Categories.pdf which has not been formally published. However its in active use by Rightside, Donuts and Domain Name Services (that I know of) meaning that around 190 new TLDs are using it or about to do so.

So the question is where do we go to from here? Do we try and get Rightside to have the original author publish it to the EPP extension registry or do we pretend it doesn't exist and ignore the significant percentage of new TLDs using it?


On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Gavin Brown <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

I've just submitted a new version of the fee extension draft for your
review.

9.4. Changes from 03 to 04

   1.  Changed Intended Status to Standards Track.

   2.  As per suggestion from Michael Bauland, the <fee:period> element
       is no longer included in <check> and <info> responses for
       "restore" commands.  It's still mandatory for all other commands.

   3.  Added summary of the attributes for the <fee:fee> element.

   4.  Clarified that the "refundable" and "grace-period" attributes of
       the <fee> fee elements are dependant on each other and cannot
       appear on their own.

   5.  Removed the option of returning a 1001 response when the fee is
       incorrect.

   6.  Forbidden the inclusion of extension elements in transform
       responses if no fee/credit has been assessed.

   7.  Made the <fee:currency> element optional in transform commands.

   8.  Amended XML Namespace section of IANA Considerations, added EPP
       Extension Registry section.

10. TODO


   (Note to RFC Editor: remove this section before publication as an
   RFC.)

   1.  Make the extension object-agnostic so it can be used with other
       objects, not just vanilla domains.

   2.  Change the <check> command so that availability data is not
       returned.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-brown-epp-fees-04.txt
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 02:16:09 -0800
From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To: Gavin Brown <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

A new version of I-D, draft-brown-epp-fees-04.txt
has been successfully submitted by Gavin Brown and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-brown-epp-fees
Revision:       04
Title:          Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
(EPP)
Document date:  2015-02-17
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          36
URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-brown-epp-fees-04.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brown-epp-fees/
Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brown-epp-fees-04
Diff:           http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-brown-epp-fees-04

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<http://tools.ietf.org/>g/>.

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
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext





_______________________________________________

EppExt mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext


_______________________________________________
EppExt mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eppext