I want to acknowledge that the chairs have seen your request to define the next step.

We are reviewing the issue and will propose something as soon as we can.


Antoin and Jim

On 18 Apr 2018, at 13:04, Gould, James wrote:

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.




James Gould

Distinguished Engineer



12061 Bluemont Way

Reston, VA 20190

Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>

On 4/18/18, 2:28 AM, "regext on behalf of Patrick Mevzek" <regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of p...@dotandco.com> 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:


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



    regext mailing list



regext mailing list
regext mailing list

Reply via email to