Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension: availability check result depending on fee extension?
"Gould, James" <jgould@verisign.com> Tue, 14 July 2020 12:01 UTC
Return-Path: <jgould@verisign.com>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36C173A0AFF for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=verisign.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lsx1m7x9iVZ6 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.verisign.com (mail3.verisign.com [72.13.63.32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 781573A0AFA for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=verisign.com; l=5568; q=dns/txt; s=VRSN; t=1594728092; h=from:to:cc:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject; bh=8J4nW5PJ/yuCUmG9JleH2aOAgclUhA0jpTEwp6jaCdU=; b=GMuBGNs5a+hfwwx7Ej4i96McRjxHC3nTEvVmGRRr4+/7HQgw7lPW30d7 0vPfZFB4nyEg9haDA5da8Wgi2KEGLeOcK00IKf4LBz+NsxaqZQkLryWfA cx7aopMMSCqsph7bC66M/JR2lwCetaHc0Vgznej2qdQXujl/ZlwHt9FyC QJSEzQHCtFiwTVNRmE8w2WoxrjK80wUXmhyl763YYXCghtrtI2h8O0sBo eYW5547mpWiaYaISBnLbmKkVea8K4m0udGyiNLwuSQ8MgDTdga1MV+bNS zakWyn7V2Ei58SCaL0QpEVHrEj/xY9N8BLqwz1en5Jdf1006XFvCh/+ll Q==;
IronPort-SDR: h2HufsWJJrB7bip9JkS/pNigmo1s4fJC37cWGNzKx5SVjtmDiscr6ifvOvUuJxqXNd4dnxTa/a KjS5WCzG0z1n0anKSP1cid2SJrIGEmUtEmP6ruaLd11JM2jIi8Q4wHvAOtYQFm52jrB517I2Al b7NRCYx76O1M/3ftfSbfR6MnwjuN9r6HrjI9RswSRG4mkbuuD3S18X6l8qdkRdT0/jRUYYeWq3 ufhwAudDXJnuLtol3pglZZuUbfHI5mE2it1gKitC7quEmxhQboASCUsdpDXy/p6mM4RDLHOB6s n6I=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,350,1589241600"; d="scan'208";a="2273592"
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23: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
X-IPAS-Result: A2EqBACUnQ1f/zGZrQpdAx0BAQEBCQESAQUFAUCBSoF1gSSBMwqEKZB2JYNzl1kXJgsBAQEBAQEBAQEHASMMBAEBAoRKAheCByU4EwIDAQELAQEBBQEBAQEBBgMBAQEChkQMgjcieD0JPQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQUCCAc0GQc1EgEBHgEEASMROgsOAgIBCBoCEgEMBwICAhkXFRACBAENBYMmAYJcL6kCgTKKYwWBCSqGP4ZNgUI+gREnDBCCTT6BBIFYAQECAYFEGBcKJgECgkwzgi0EkkSGb5pugQQDB4JdiFOLE4V3HoQTmyCRcYhGEoFMlFICBAIEBQIVgWqBe3AVOyoBgj4JRxcCDY42H4M6hRSFQnQOJgMCBgEHAQEDCY4UD4EkgREBAQ
Received: from BRN1WNEX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (10.173.153.48) by BRN1WNEX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (10.173.153.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 08:01:28 -0400
Received: from BRN1WNEX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([fe80::a89b:32d6:b967:337d]) by BRN1WNEX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([fe80::a89b:32d6:b967:337d%6]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.005; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 08:01:28 -0400
From: "Gould, James" <jgould@verisign.com>
To: "Thomas.Corte@knipp.de" <Thomas.Corte@knipp.de>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
CC: "support@tango-rs.com" <support@tango-rs.com>
Thread-Topic: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension: availability check result depending on fee extension?
Thread-Index: AQHWS8BAxPyuP9a+wUiwqG3Zbf/+Y6jq8cYAgBX4LgCABRsxgIABL08A///hDIA=
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:01:28 +0000
Message-ID: <40207ACB-3CC2-4481-829E-86C37BDA530A@verisign.com>
References: <20200314164521.0B10EF406C9@rfc-editor.org> <ac9d9567-e847-8802-14e4-07c36e216c19@knipp.de> <5703B97E-20EF-4FCA-AA32-68AF595A088F@verisign.com> <04d5dfb5-d9ae-06a9-b137-4cedcefbc399@knipp.de> <9EF7EBBA-9E2E-4478-9F5B-1AC3C50191C5@verisign.com> <5f1f0f3f-d801-3591-68b6-f9ee044e3305@knipp.de> <36C57CBC-D931-4B87-B4DE-27A75CA28E38@verisign.com> <5f93bb04-16fd-8a9c-9a79-4a225e5d9563@knipp.de>
In-Reply-To: <5f93bb04-16fd-8a9c-9a79-4a225e5d9563@knipp.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.10.16.200509
x-originating-ip: [10.170.148.18]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <FE3B55163CD93E438F04061637BC5693@verisign.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/C8iFjewnHXUEjgcCasnxjnFWj6Q>
Subject: Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension: availability check result depending on fee extension?
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:01:32 -0000
Thomas, The versions of the fee extension that you reference have similar language associated with returning avail="0" for premium domains: 1. fee-0.23 - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-08#section-4 2. fee-0.21 - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-05#section-4 In both cases it reads: The server MUST return avail="0" in its response to a <check> command for any domain name in the <check> command that does not include the <fee:check> extension for which the server would likewise fail a domain <create> command when no <fee> extension is provided for that same domain name. The very old fee-0.8 version specifies in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brown-epp-fees-05#section-4 "Servers MUST provide clear documentation to clients about the circumstances in which this extension must be used.", which provides flexibility for the server to normalize the behavior as defined in draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-05, draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-08, and RFC 8748. This use case was discussed at length in the working group, where returning a premium domain name as available without the required fee to use on create will result in a failure downstream. This is the reason for the language starting in draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-04. Thanks, -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer jgould@Verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgould@Verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 7/14/20, 5:52 AM, "regext on behalf of Thomas Corte (TANGO support)" <regext-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Thomas.Corte@knipp.de> wrote: James, On 7/13/20 21:46, Gould, James wrote: > Thomas, > > Signaling support for fee-1.0 in the login services is not material for this use case. The key element is whether the create of the premium domain name will fail if the client does not know the correct fee and the fee extension is required to be passed on create. I don't see a code breakage scenario here, but I don't know what mix of extensions you're dealing with. So, case in point: once we roll out support for fee-1.0, TANGO will also keep supporting the older fee extension versions fee-0.8, fee-0.21 and fee-0.23 (the RFC recommends to allow older versions to facilitate migration to new versions). Now, none of these old versions had the requirement to report "domain not available" if no fee extension is included in a premium domain check. So, registrars currently using fee-0.21 for example will expect availability checks to truthfully report avail=1 for premium domains in such a scenario. Just the fact that the registry system was updated to also support fee-1.0 should not change the system's behavior from their point of view, should it? Otherwise, they would be forced to change their <domain:check> clients to include the fee extension to get the previous availability results - to accommodate a change caused by a fee extension version they don't even use. Best regards, Thomas -- TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES® is a product of: Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH Technologiepark Phone: +49 231 9703-222 Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 D-44227 Dortmund E-Mail: support@tango-rs.com Germany _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://secure-web.cisco.com/1tS78h3zvnAPOtomCdUHVDM7D17WfX22p7Pd6zVlMsgS7lzILKOFXHeNh8Isr52cCXcvBSyQkAjKy5zjYK_vBbzpvnNtdI0R5NVrFQzRfv8jgv9C-99xdcmRQKwkeUqvWb4lnu8Tw8WH4t_lgA2ZF8VF4zgoPcDVKXKjN7HgN1owdVTlosmxBYewNDGlYXWIXhTuj4owNa0-n7d-SrGRBiT1FzRcNuu_UpoGGAx_fcq6fRKp8O3O3l_i7I9UzKI0fDJ2m4-Zj8evpLArNgCwbUuU_H8ynwmD9WouiD4aDy68/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext
- [regext] RFC 8748 on Registry Fee Extension for t… rfc-editor
- [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension: av… Thomas Corte (TANGO support)
- Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension… Gould, James
- Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension… Thomas Corte (TANGO support)
- Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension… Gould, James
- Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension… Thomas Corte (TANGO support)
- Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension… Gould, James
- Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension… Jothan Frakes
- Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension… Thomas Corte (TANGO support)
- Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension… Thomas Corte (TANGO support)
- Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension… Gould, James
- Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension… Thomas Corte (TANGO support)
- Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension… Gould, James
- Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension… Thomas Corte (TANGO support)
- Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension… Gould, James
- [regext] Re: RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension… Patrick Mevzek
- Re: [regext] EPP Registry Fee Extension: availabi… Thomas Corte (TANGO support)
- Re: [regext] EPP Registry Fee Extension: availabi… Patrick Mevzek