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

["Thomas Corte (TANGO support)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello James,

On 7/14/20 14:01, Gould, James wrote:

> 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.

Ok, thanks for pointing this out - looks as if we missed this addition
when we upgraded our system from the older versions we had supported
previously.

> 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.  

Sure, it provides flexibility, but a registry must still be wary about
the implications of any change in server behavior, even if the previous
behavior resulted from a wrong implementation. We'll need to take this
into consideration when altering the check results of our system where
legacy versions of the extension are used. Our fee-1.0 implementation
will for sure adhere to the language in the RFC.

By the way, you're right that fee-0.8 is very old, however you'd be
surprised that, for many registries, it is still the latest version they
will support, with some only supporting even *older* versions (like
fee-0.5 in the case of CentralNic).
This has led to the unpleasant situation that some bigger registrars who
want to avoid the effort of implementing newer versions even put pressure
on registries to introduce support for these older versions, as they
regard them as the established "de-facto" standard.

Based on this experience, I'm afraid it will take a long time until
fee-1.0 will be widely adopted by registries or registrars, if ever.

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