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

"Thomas Corte (TANGO support)" <Thomas.Corte@knipp.de> Fri, 26 June 2020 15:24 UTC

Return-Path: <Thomas.Corte@knipp.de>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3E43A0843 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ziLNV86RoT6b for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kmx5a.knipp.de (kmx5a.knipp.de [IPv6:2a01:5b0:0:29::63]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D94233A0845 for <regext@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 08:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hp9000.do.knipp.de (hp9000.do.knipp.de [IPv6:2a01:5b0:0:25::36]) by kmx5a.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49tgdr5q2pz4vDL; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:24:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from dhcp203.intra.dtm.knipp.de (dhcp203.intra.dtm.knipp.de [195.253.2.203]) by hp9000.do.knipp.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 826C171918; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:24:00 +0200 (MESZ)
To: Jothan Frakes <jothan@jothan.com>
Cc: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
References: <20200314164521.0B10EF406C9@rfc-editor.org> <ac9d9567-e847-8802-14e4-07c36e216c19@knipp.de> <5703B97E-20EF-4FCA-AA32-68AF595A088F@verisign.com> <04d5dfb5-d9ae-06a9-b137-4cedcefbc399@knipp.de> <9EF7EBBA-9E2E-4478-9F5B-1AC3C50191C5@verisign.com> <07e7b73b-3d87-c8bc-1d19-f783f1b02879@knipp.de> <5AC84F96-3A68-4657-AB2D-34F094FFC0ED@verisign.com> <CAGrS0F+uGxtt+HQ8OH0UqEJoR9G67XhZttrUUHM8DWa+1v=2yQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Thomas Corte (TANGO support)" <Thomas.Corte@knipp.de>
Organization: Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
Message-ID: <2b445036-3da4-0aba-1356-01cd30db1253@knipp.de>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:24:02 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGrS0F+uGxtt+HQ8OH0UqEJoR9G67XhZttrUUHM8DWa+1v=2yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spamd-Bar: /
Authentication-Results: kmx5a.knipp.de; none
X-Rspamd-Server: v1117
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49tgdr5q2pz4vDL
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; ASN(0.00)[asn:8391, ipnet:2a01:5b0::/32, country:DE]; LOCAL_WL_IP(0.00)[2a01:5b0:0:25::36]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/lalDmz6DEGM_4FFBk2HWv135DgE>
Subject: Re: [regext] RFC 8748, EPP Registry Fee Extension: availability check result depending on fee extension?
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 15:24:22 -0000

Hello Jothan,

On 6/26/20 17:15, Jothan Frakes wrote:

> @Tomas  I could see someone submitting a non-conforming fee extension in
> the check command to trick the registry into providing basic availability
> or taken of a name.
> 
> Possible: perhaps
> Probable: unlikely
> 
> You make a good point that the respective command, especially billable
> events, should perhaps check that the appropriate fee extension was
> sent.  Depending upon the registry implementation, this could
> theoretically work, but a registrar would still have to pay the
> respective registry designated fee for a create/renew/transfer,   

Sure, the subsequent domain create attempt would still fail if the wrong
command was sent in the extension, even if the availability check was
"tricked" into confirming availability.

> I am working very hard to imagine why someone would go to the trouble of
> sending the wrong fee extension with a command if they were going to be
> sending one at all. 

Agreed, it's more work to get this wrong than right. We'll go with the
John's lax interpretation in our implementation and will report avail="1"
for premium names as long as the check command contains *any* fee
extension whatsoever.

Best regards,

Thomas

-- 
TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES®
Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH                    Thomas Corte
Technologiepark                             Phone: +49 231 9703-222
Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9                       Fax: +49 231 9703-200
D-44227 Dortmund                      E-Mail: Thomas.Corte@knipp.de
Germany