Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-03.txt

[Thomas Corte <[e-mail]>]

Hello Roger,

On 25/04/2017 23:40, Roger D Carney wrote:

> One topic that was discussed in Chicago (and not resolved) was on the
> concept of “premium names” and what is returned from the server if no fee
> extension was passed into the <check>. Many thought to be more “backwards
> compatible”/”user friendly”, especially for those registrars that do not
> and may not be participating in the allocation of “premium names”, that
> the server should respond as unavailable. Others expressed that if it is
> available then the server should respond available. Please share your
> thoughts on the list on this topic and if this draft should even try to
> account for this concept.

I believe that responding "unavailable" is the best option here.

The rationale is: if a <domain:check> without special precautions (such
as an extension) yields "available", then a subsequent <domain:create>
without special precautions should succeed. Conversely, if a
<domain:create> fails because the registrar didn't indicate (via the fee
extension, for example) that he's aware of the higher price of the
domain, then a corresponding <domain:check> should yield "not available"
if that check doesn't somehow indicate the same awareness of the higher
price. The semantics of that check result are: "You can't create the
domain name just like that, more data is needed."

Now I'm aware that the fee extension isn't currently suited for
signalling awareness of a higher price in a <domain:check>, but that's OK
since it provides other means to find out under which circumstances a
<domain:create> for a checked domain will succeed.


As a side note, I should mention that in our own TANGO registry system,
the pricing of premium domains is closely tied to *launch phases* (since
launch phases readily provide a means to classify domains, we decided to
use it rather than creating an additional proprietary classification). A
registrar may create a premium domain by either providing correct fee
information *or* specifying the correct launch phase when creating the
domain.
In this setup, a <domain:check> for a premium domain yields "unavailable"
without specification of that launch phase, but it yields "available" if
the correct launch phases is passed along in the <domain:check> command.
Yet I'm aware that this kind of signalling ("what if I created that
domain specifying these fees in an extension?") isn't within the fee
extension's scope at the moment, and it probably won't need to be.

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