Re: [regext] draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees: add feature to inquire balance and credit limit?

.it is interested in the Balance Mapping extension.  With regard to the Low Balance Mapping extension, .it has already implemented a poll message with the same meaning.

Mario

Inviato da iPhone

> Il giorno 15 mag 2019, alle ore 19:52, Gould, James <jgould=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> ha scritto:
> 
> Thomas,
> 
> I view the balance and credit limit information as separate from the fee information supported by draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees.  The balance and credit limit information can optionally be returned by draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees, but I believe it's better to support a specific query mechanism.  The Balance Mapping, which is registered in the EPP Extension Registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/epp-extensions/epp-extensions.xhtml), enables querying for the balance and credit limit information directly.  The Low Balance Mapping, which is also registered in the EPP Extension Registry, supports a poll message when the available credit falls below a pre-defined threshold.  Is there interest in these extensions?  
> 
> —
> 
> JG
> 
> 
> 
> James Gould
> Distinguished Engineer
> jgould@Verisign.com
> 
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
> 
> Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> 
> 
> On 5/15/19, 10:49 AM, "regext on behalf of Thomas Corte (TANGO support)" <regext-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Thomas.Corte@knipp.de> wrote:
> 
>    Hello,
> 
>    some of our registrars keep asking for a feature to simply inquire their
>    current account balance and credit limit via EPP.
> 
>    As far as I can tell, even the latest fee extension draft
>    ("draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-16") only supports the retrieval of this
>    information in the response to a *transform* command, but not e.g. in a
>    check response.
> 
>    This isn't ideal since the registrar should not be forced to send a
>    "dummy" sequence of billable commands (e.g., a domain create/delete or
>    transfer request/cancel sequence) only to get this information.
>    Also, even if the registrar would store the values from the most recent
>    "non-dummy" transform response, they could become obsolete quickly due to
>    intermittent automatic renewals, or account top-up deposits.
> 
>    What's the opinion in this group regarding the addition of an inquiry
>    feature, e.g. by adding a flag to the <domain:check> command fee
>    extension, which could trigger the inclusion of the balance/limit in the
>    <domain:check> fee response extension?
> 
>    Best regards,
> 
>    Thomas Corte
> 
>    -- 
>    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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext