Re: [provreg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-brown-epp-fees-01.txt

[Klaus Malorny <[e-mail]>]

On 25.04.2014 01:48, Seth Goldman wrote:
> Hi Gavin,
 >
 > [...]
 >
> As far as I can tell, no other EPP extensions puts repeated types inside the
> <extension> element (for either commands or responses). Instead, they use a
> top-level container type, with repeated elements nested underneath that, e.g.:
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?>
>    <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0">
>    <command>
>      <check>
>        <domain:check xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
>        ...
>        </domain:check>
>      </check>
>      <extension>
>        <fee:check xmlns:fee="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:fee-0.4">
>          <fee:domain>
>            <fee:name>example.tld</fee:name>
>            ...
>          </fee:domain>
>          <fee:domain>
>            <fee:name>example.com <http://example.com></fee:name>
>            ...
>          </fee:domain>
>          <fee:domain>
>            <fee:name>example.org <http://example.org></fee:name>
>            ...
>          </fee:domain>
>        </fee:check>
>      </extension>
>      <clTRID>ABC-12345</clTRID>
>    </command>
> </epp>
>
> I think if you modified your draft to follow this pattern, it would be more in
> line with the convention used by other EPP extensions.
>
> Cheers,
> Seth
>
>

Hi all,

I fully support Seth's suggestion, it would be better not to repeat the 
extension itself, but list the response for each domain within a single extension.

Regards,

Klaus