Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol

[Patrick Mevzek <[e-mail]>]

Le lundi 04 novembre 2013 à 09:38 -0500, MICHAEL W YOUNG a écrit :
> > I am now agnostic on whether to use <info> or <check> for this extension
> > (having previously been in favour of <info>). When I originally wrote
> > the predecessor to this extension back in 2011, I did have some
> > reservations about which command to use, and spoke to Patrick Mevzek who
> > (at the time) agreed with my decision to use <check>.
> > 
> > If anyone else has thoughts about the choice of command to extend,
> > please speak now!
> 
> 
> 
> I like the principle of extending <info>, it's in keeping with the concept of retrieving clarifying information, whereas <check> was meant to be cheap, fast, light-weight.

The check can remain as light as it is today… since the fee structure is
returned only if the fee extension is added in check command, so it is
totally up to the registrar to see if they want it or not and if they
want the super fast check without it or the heavier one with it.

I have no strong opinion either way (and did not have time to
extensively read the new extension proposal), but I still slightly
prefer the check for this reason:
my reading of the spirit of EPP is that "info" is to query data about an
existing object in the registry database. In that way, a fee is not an
object, and neither a property of a domain (it is a property of a
transaction, not of a live object of a registry database)

Hence, the need to do a domain:info on a *non-existing* yet domain name
to find the cost of this creation is troublesome for me.

While §2.9.2.2. of RFC530 can be read in many ways, I'm assessing it as
"resData is there only in case of success" (and hence also <extension>).
I do also read exactly in the text:
The EPP <info> command is used to retrieve information associated
   with an existing object. 

So domain:info prior to a creation seem counter-nature to me

-- 
Patrick Mevzek