Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension: availability check result depending on fee extension?

["Gould, James" <[e-mail]>]

Thomas,

I provide responses to your questions embedded below.  

-- 
 
JG



James Gould
Fellow Engineer
[e-mail] <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[e-mail]>

703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>

On 6/25/20, 1:33 PM, "regext on behalf of Thomas Corte (TANGO support)" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    Hello,
    
    we're currently working on implementing RFC 8748 (EPP Registry Fee
    Extension) in our registry system, and I just stumbled upon this
    paragraph in section 4 (Server Handling of Fee Information):
    
       "The server MUST return avail="0" in its response to a <check> command
       for any object in the <check> command that does not include the
       <fee:check> extension where the server would fail a domain <create>
       command when no <fee> extension is provided for that same object."
    
    If my interpretation of this is correct, this means that the server is
    supposed to reply avail="0" in a <domain:check> response for all
    available domains which do not have a standard price, i.e. which require
    the acceptance of special fees via the fee extension on <domain:create>,
    unless the client supplies (any?) fee extension in with the
    <domain:check> command.
    
    I admit that I missed this part even in older versions of the draft, so I
    may be late to the party.
    Anyhow, I wonder:
    
    * Is it a good idea to simply claim that a name is not available,
      even though it actually *is* available (if the client is ready to pay
      the special price)?
    
JG - Yes, returning a name as not available is be compliant with the RFC.  

    * Which kind of fee check extension is sufficient to report the name
      as "available"? What if the registrar merely checks for a renewal
      price, but not for a create price?
      Should he still get avail="1", even though he may still be oblivious to
      the higher registration price?
    
JG - The RFC only specifies that the fee extension needs to be provided to support the create command, so checking the renewal fee is not applicable.   

    I understand that this is maybe another attempt to protect registrars
    from offering / registering premium names inadvertently, but is it the
    right way to do this?

JG - Yes, returning a premium domain name as unavailable when the create will fail is the right way to do it.  
    
    Fee-unaware registrars may lose business by reporting names as taken,
    even though they may be able to register them manually for their
    customers (without EPP) after determining the price out-of-band.
    And requiring the fee extension in the transform commands for
    non-standard prices should be protection enough against inadvertent
    premium registrations.
    
    Also, it seems somewhat questionable to affect the outcome of the plain
    availability check depending on the presence of the fee extension.
    
JG - There was much discussion around this use case in the working group.  

    Thoughts?
    
    Best regards,
    
    Thomas
    
    -- 
    TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES®
    Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH                    Thomas Corte
    Technologiepark                             Phone: [phone]
    Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9                       Fax: [phone]
    D-44227 Dortmund                      E-Mail: [e-mail]
    Germany
    
    _______________________________________________
    regext mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://secure-web.cisco.com/1v_YJ06qRdzwmH9Hkg036A-xEBGAaLOxurmipvITWVRFQeyYrMo0C4WbNqva3xaKZcf-i37NRcE9PBISmus8MMBTI9ZMNT9MdtBIiK7wx3eAp5SYV9cZ8nFrBm1ZIfqkduCE3pUYhPuy03eD0w9q4IyIptZBPS2MZ6gWecLS0zbc_3UjY92AFrLuIoldci7mUpZhFAW-PI-AjMLnLmPAYmWMSiIibsygbDVZdcSAZJtZGF0pK-12cQ1zChm4PaAUJ9GSvev_RhbBvNBgyKzFKOg/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext