Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
Patrick Mevzek <Patrick.Mevzek@afnic.fr> Mon, 04 November 2013 23:22 UTC
Return-Path: <Patrick.Mevzek@afnic.fr>
X-Original-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: provreg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix)
with ESMTP id 4B2E921E8287 for <provreg@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:22:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300,
BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_65=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com
[127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B1cuHz-q9yJR for
<provreg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:22:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [192.134.4.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com
(Postfix) with ESMTP id A308721E827A for <provreg@ietf.org>;
Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with
SMTP id 169272801BE; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 00:21:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from relay1.nic.fr (relay1.nic.fr [192.134.4.162]) by mx4.nic.fr
(Postfix) with ESMTP id 12263280129; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 00:21:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (citrine.tech.ipv6.nic.fr
[IPv6:2001:67c:2219:7::86:96]) by relay1.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id
DE4234C007C; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 00:20:51 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <1383607251.7757.18.camel@citrine-mobile>
From: Patrick Mevzek <Patrick.Mevzek@afnic.fr>
To: MICHAEL W YOUNG <michael@mwyoung.ca>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 00:20:51 +0100
In-Reply-To: <50BA5417-0506-4976-A61E-8C7D26186D01@mwyoung.ca>
References: <CE99706E.51081%jgould@verisign.com>
<52779E1E.7070209@centralnic.com>
<B90E03E1-76A2-4806-91F2-608C206B64E6@mwyoung.ca>
<1383603400.7757.12.camel@citrine-mobile>
<50BA5417-0506-4976-A61E-8C7D26186D01@mwyoung.ca>
Organization: AFNIC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4-0ubuntu1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: provreg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning
Protocol
X-BeenThere: provreg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: EPP discussion list <provreg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/provreg>,
<mailto:provreg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/provreg>
List-Post: <mailto:provreg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:provreg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg>,
<mailto:provreg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 23:22:34 -0000
Le lundi 04 novembre 2013 à 17:33 -0500, MICHAEL W YOUNG a écrit : > > So domain:info prior to a creation seem counter-nature to me > > > Interesting point, however, > > > Same principle applies with <check> , if the domain doesn't exist in > the registry and you send back pricing information it's a query for > information about a non-existent domain object. > Yes, but domain:check is tailored to operate on both existing and non-existing domain names per definition, while for me domain:info is not. Same problem with the launchphase extension during claims phase. > So, really, if anything, that supports the argument for new > commands,........and new objects (a pricing object) - now watch > everyone groan on the list. I was in fact about to suggest a "fee" object, but I sense it to be not worth the hassle, and have no time to work on that. I will implement the currently discussed draft both in the check or in the info command, I have no strong enough opinion. -- Patrick Mevzek
- [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Extensib… Gavin Brown
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Michele Neylon - Blacknight
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Rubens Kuhl
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Hollenbeck, Scott
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Gavin Brown
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Michele Neylon - Blacknight
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Gould, James
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Klaus Malorny
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Luis Muñoz
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Gavin Brown
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Gavin Brown
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… MICHAEL W YOUNG
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Gavin Brown
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Luis Muñoz
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Gavin Brown
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Gould, James
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Gavin Brown
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… MICHAEL W YOUNG
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Luis Muñoz
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Jan Saell
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Gavin Brown
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Patrick Mevzek
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Seth Goldman
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… MICHAEL W YOUNG
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Patrick Mevzek
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Gavin Brown
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Maarten Bosteels
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Keith Gaughan
- Re: [provreg] Registry Fee Extension for the Exte… Gould, James