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

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

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)?

* 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?

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?

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.

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