Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Invite

[Andreas Huber]

Hi,

I planned to attend, but unfortunately can't make it.

Regarding 1.a, as mentioned before, it "would" be very helpful to know if a 
billable transaction (create, renew, transfer, restore) is priced with a 
standard fee (based on contracts between registrars and registries) or a 
non-standard fee.
There is no need to put this information inside , any other tag or 
attribute would also work (proposed by JG). Probably the usage of  by 
some registries, to transport this information, as documented in draft version 
05 and 06, leads us to this discussion.

But well, if nobody else has this requirement, it's probably a "nice to have" 
and clients should make their decisions whether a fee is standard/non-standard 
in some other way - if a client needs it at all.

Therefore, moving  to the object level is ok for me, if it's not used 
for this case.

Best,
Andreas



Am 08.01.2018 um 17:11 schrieb Roger D Carney:
> Good Morning,
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for email Antoin. We have had a few people indicate that they plan on 
> attending the meeting this Wednesday at 19:00UTC (Chris Cowherd, James Gould, 
> Jody Kolker, Scott Hollenbeck and of course the two chairs).
> 
>  
> 
> As a reminder for the group, here is the agenda:
> 
> 1. Fee
> 
>  a. Discuss appropriate level for , at the object level  or 
>  level
> 
>  b. Discuss WG Last Call
> 
> 2. Registry Mappings
> 
>  a. Introduce the Registry Mapping concepts
> 
>  
> 
> For agenda 1.a  we will be making the decision on how  works (command 
> or object level), so for those that have an opinion on this topic, this will 
> be the last time to discuss before the document is updated.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Roger
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*Antoin Verschuren [mailto:i...@antoin.nl]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 08, 2018 9:04 AM
> *To:* Roger D Carney 
> *Cc:* regext@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [regext] REGEXT Interim Meeting Invite
> 
>  
> 
> I will attend too.
> 
> But so far the chairs seem to be the only attendants?
> 
> Are there any more people that will attend?
> 
>  
> 
> I was waiting for some more respondents before scheduling the meeting.
> 
> I just submitted the official meeting request, but that would be a late 
> notice for the secretariat.
> 
>  
> 
> Roger, did you get any feedback on attendance?
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> - -- 
> Antoin Verschuren
> 
> Tweevoren 6, 5672 SB Nuenen, NL
> M: +31 6 37682392
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Op 13 dec. 2017, om 14:46 heeft James Galvin  > het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> 
> I will attend.
> 
> Jim
> 
>  
> 
> On 7 Dec 2017, at 11:36, Roger D Carney wrote:
> 
> Good Morning,
> 
>  
> 
> I would like to invite everyone to an interim meeting Wednesday 
> January 10^th  at 19:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
> 
>  
> 
> We plan to discuss items around the latest version of the Fee draft 
> and to introduce a Registry Mapping proposal.
> 
>  
> 
> Agenda
> 
>  1. Fee
> 
>  1. Discuss appropriate level for , at the object level 
>  or  level
>  2. Discuss WG Last Call
> 
>  2. Registry Mappings
> 
>  1. Introduce the Registry Mapping concepts
> 
>  
> 
> We will once again use Zoom as a conferencing tool, please use this 
> link  to connect to the meeting.
> 
>  
> 
> Please reply to the list or directly to myself if you plan on 
> attending this meeting.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Roger
> 
>  
> 
> ___
> 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
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] REGEXT Fee Document

[Andreas Huber]

Hi all,

 should be under . I have the same points than Pat. We 
do not need to know if a price of a single command *COULD* be non-standard. 
Thats the same as completely skipping . Indeed, what I really need, 
is to know if a single fee is "standard" or "non-standard" priced, because we 
do a completely different processing of premium and standard (or promotion) 
fees. While registries had premium fees for create, renew and transfer, this 
wasn't a big thing, but since most registries switch to premium create with 
standard renew fees, we need to differentiate. So, I would suggest to clarify 
section 3.7 and change it to fee level.

To save some bytes in the check response,  with "standard" could be 
assumed as default and therefore optional, but mandatory if non-standard 
(premium, promotion, etc.).

Another solution would be to not transmit standard fees in the fee extension at 
all.

Thanks,
Andreas


Am 16.11.2017 um 04:44 schrieb Gould, James:
> Pat,
> 
>  
> 
> I will go back to the definition of the classification, which is an 
> object-level attribute (e.g., “standard” or “premium” domain).  Each 
> classification has a fee schedule (commands and periods) that is assigned at 
> the object-level, where the combination of the command and the period has a 
> fee and not a classification.  The classification () should be 
> placed in the location that reflects the definition to remove any confusion, 
> which is under the  element.    
> 
>   
> 
> —
> 
>  
> 

___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext

Re: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-03.txt

[Andreas Huber]

Hi Roger,

thanks for version 0.17! This one should solve most of our "registrar" issues 
(Hopefully, some registries plan to implement this version soon).

Some thoughts to open questions:

* Premium Domain Availability without Fee-Ext.

I would also vote to respond with "unavailable".

The status "premium" of a domain could be understood in a similar way to the 
domain status reserved, blocked or registered. Without using the fee extension, 
it's not possible to register such names, therefore they're "unavailable" for 
the registrar just like reserved names.
If we don't want to use the Fee-Ext. for a specific registry (because of 
contractual reasons or something else), we're not interested in the 
availability of premium names which we can't/won't register anyway.

Second thought: From a registry's perspective, I understand a name is always 
"available" if it is not registered, blocked or reserved, independent of any 
fees. But, ;) since EPP is a personalized communication protocol (client needs 
to login and register extensions to use), then responses should be
personalized to the client. For a client not using the fee extension, a premium 
name is technically "unavailable".


*  in check responses

The last weeks a question regarding the  element came up a couple of 
times.

 is a child of  since version 0.13, therefore section 
3.7. should be clarified.

Is  an attribute of a specific fee or an object? There are some 
misunderstandings, especially before version 0.13, which describes "class" as a 
child of . Several discussions with registries pointed out, that they 
understand  as "attribute" of the object. This results
in conditions where a domain has a premium create but a standard renewal fee to 
be both tagged with "premium", because an object can only have one value of the 
same attribute.

As an example (from section 3.7): "The  element which appears in 
 responses is used to indicate the classification of an object." should 
be changed to something like "... the classification of a command fee".

As a registrar, we need to know if a "command fee" (not an object) is premium 
(e.g. premium) or standard, if one wants to respond 
standard fees at all. Responding standard fees are in fact unnecessary, btw.


Thanks,
Andreas




Am 25.04.2017 um 23:40 schrieb Roger D Carney:
> Good Afternoon,
> 
>  
> 
> Here is the update draft document. This should include all of the agreed upon 
> changes from the Chicago meeting (biggest change was the simplification of 
> the  call).
> 
>  
> 
> One topic that was discussed in Chicago (and not resolved) was on the concept 
> of “premium names” and what is returned from the server if no fee extension 
> was passed into the . Many thought to be more “backwards 
> compatible”/”user friendly”, especially for those registrars that do not and 
> may
> not be participating in the allocation of “premium names”, that the server 
> should respond as unavailable. Others expressed that if it is available then 
> the server should respond available. Please share your thoughts on the list 
> on this topic and if this draft should even try to account for this concept.
> 
>  
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Roger
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: regext [mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 4:31 PM
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> Cc: regext@ietf.org
> Subject: [regext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-03.txt
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> directories.
> 
> This draft is a work item of the Registration Protocols Extensions of the 
> IETF.
> 
>  
> 
> Title   : Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible 
> Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
> 
> Authors : Roger Carney
> 
>   Gavin Brown
> 
>   Jothan Frakes
> 
> Filename: draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-03.txt
> 
> Pages   : 33
> 
> Date: 2017-04-25
> 
>  
> 
> Abstract:
> 
>This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
> 
>extension mapping for registry fees.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees/
> 
>  
> 
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-03
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-03
> 
>  
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-03
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission 
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
>  
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> 
> ftp://ftp.iet