In re-reviewing the mailing list thread, as the document shepherd I'm unsure if there is consensus on this. The two items discussed on the list include:
1. Location of the <fee:class> element at the object-level (<fee:cd>) or at the command-level (<fee:command>). Draft draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-09 moved the <fee:class> from under the <fee:command> element to the <fee:cd> element. 2. Support for the optional “standard” attribute in the <fee:command> element to indicate that the command matches the standard fee, which is independent to the object-level <fee:class> value. Draft draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-09 added support for this attribute; although it was added for the check command (commandType) instead of just the check response (commandDataType). This topic started back at IETF-100 and was discussed on the list starting with Roger Carney's message (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/E_oE3luLvB6B2c082-0PHvYZP9o). I ask the chairs to take a look at this to define the next step. Thanks, — JG James Gould Distinguished Engineer [email protected] 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 4/18/18, 2:28 AM, "regext on behalf of Patrick Mevzek" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: On Mon, Apr 16, 2018, at 16:19, Gould, James wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, at 15:09, Gould, James wrote: > > I made the proposal for the optional "standard" attribute with the > list > > message > > > (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/7E6X5xCdt3DhqL7p7CFupm9bAAY/?qid=e4f712bc8e70e4d0a458971928924651) > > on the thread with Pat Moroney. > > Yes, but that was not included in the document and noone replied to your > request for thoughts. > > There were plenty of responses on the thread to the request for > thoughts. See Pat Moroney's response that is next in the thread > (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/ftCDAgAQMyXDPPbvKYN3px5cG_Y). Sorry I trusted the web interface of the archive, and it does not display threads nicely. I should have trusted by own email client instead. > The fact that there is a need to change the schema at the last time clearly > shows to me that something is half-baked and should not be shipped as is. > > Do you support the inclusion of the "standard" attribute I do not and said so in the past: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/HY1aRTOvT0om6IL4vP6EgBoQaT4/?qid=46a1b6e6f1f01ab50b68a5f44c48f5cf I think its addition only create more complexity without a real use case. The fact that it has no clear definition in the current draft seem to prove that. > There is no need for the client to specify the "standard" attribute in > the check command. It is the way it is currently defined. The proponents of having it in the client request should maybe say something. But I see no more reasons to have it in a reply: class=standard already conveys the meaning. In short, if someone cares for this, in the client request and/or in server reply, they should provide specific and detailed definition in the document. If there is noone willing to define this element clearly in the specification, I think it means that it need to be removed altogether. -- Patrick Mevzek [email protected] _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
