Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-02.txt: currency error handling, command wildcard

[Thomas Corte <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

On 2017-03-28 15:09, Gould, James wrote:

> I had an action item from the working session yesterday to describe
> the proposal for the extension to the check response that matches
> Option C discussed at IETF-95.  The “more complex option” outlined in
> the list message
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eppext/current/msg00883.html
> provides an example of the extension to the check command and
> response for what was called Option C.  Option C included a single
> currency and a list of commands that is applied to all the domains in
> the availability check.  In the case of an invalid currency, the
> <fee:cd avail=”false”> with a <fee:reason>Invalid
> currency</fee:reason> could be returned for each of the domain names
> in the check instead of returning a failure to the availability
> check.  In this case Option C truly is an extension of the check with
> a single set of requested fee information.

I like this approach better than the current fee-0.15 solution, which allows/requires restricting the fee checks to a subset of the checked object, and supports a different currency and set of commands for every object. While this may come in handy sometimes, the most common usage would probably select all checked objects and a single currency and set of commands. Most servers will probably only support a single currency anyway.

What I don't like is that the "avail" attribute has been moved to the framing <fee:cd> element, while it's an attribute of <fee:command> in the current fee-0.15 draft. The latter has the big advantage of the server being able to report e.g. the availability of a fee (and the domain in general) for different launch phases.

For example, with fee-0.15, this response could indicate that the domain premium-500.example is available in the launch phase "custom/open-500", but not in "open".

S: <?xml version="1.0"?>
S: <epp xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
S:   <response>
S:     <result code="1000">
S:       <msg>Command completed successfully</msg>
S:     </result>
S:     <resData>
S:       <domain:chkData xmlns:domain="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain-1.0">
S:         <domain:cd>
S:           <domain:name avail="false">premium-500.example</domain:name>
S:           <domain:reason>not registrable in this phase</domain:reason>
S:         </domain:cd>
S:       </domain:chkData>
S:     </resData>
S:     <extension>
S:       <chkData xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:fee-0.15">
S:         <cd>
S:           <objID>premium-500.example</objID>
S:           <currency>EUR</currency>
S:           <command avail="false" name="create" phase="open">
S: 	       <reason>the requested launch phase is not suitable for the domain</reason>
S: 	     </command>
S:           <command name="create" phase="custom" subphase="open-500">
S:             <period unit="y">1</period>
S:             <fee applied="immediate" description="domain creation in phase 'open-500'" grace-period="PT1M" refundable="true">500.00</fee>
S:           </command>
S:         </cd>
S:       </chkData>
S:     </extension>
S:     <trID>
S:       <clTRID>e1f8b4cd61f84469436bf16585f976b3</clTRID>
S:       <svTRID>1490271424463-9</svTRID>
S:     </trID>
S:   </response>
S: </epp>

I'd like to retain this feature. I'm aware that this somewhat "abuses" the fee extension to determine which launch phase is suitable for a domain (and there is an overlap with the extension's "domain class" concept), but it's not too far from the intended use in my opinion.

Best regards,

Thomas

-- 
TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES® is a product of:
Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
Technologiepark                             Phone: [phone]
Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9                       Fax: [phone]
D-44227 Dortmund                       E-Mail: [e-mail]
Germany