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.
Thanks,
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.
Thanks,
—
JG
James Gould
Distinguished Engineer
jgo...@verisign.com
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"
<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:
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
p...@dotandco.com
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
