...@name.com>
Cc: Andreas Huber <ahu...@united-domains.de>, "regext@ietf.org"
<regext@ietf.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] AW: [regext] REGEXT Fee Document
Folks,
i really don’t like seeing the Fee Extension getting even more complicated than
it currently is. The „class“ o
Auftrag von Gould, James
Gesendet: Montag, 20. November 2017 22:21
An: Pat Moroney <pmoro...@name.com>
Cc: Andreas Huber <ahu...@united-domains.de>; regext@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: [regext] REGEXT Fee Document
Pat,
I agree that 2.d is highly unlikely, but the protocol needs to support the
Patrick,
The classification is defined at the object level, where in general a domain is
either a “standard” domain or a non-“standard” domain (e.g., “premium”,
“discount”), but there is an issue with non-“standard” classification objects
that is not handled by the element. Placing the
On Thu, Nov 16, 2017, at 09:16, Andreas Huber wrote:
> Another solution would be to not transmit standard fees in the fee
> extension at all.
I disagree.
Since the "standard" definition is not constant in time nor in space
(amont registries/TLDs),
it is not a good basis to omit fees in any
Andreas,
The point of the fee extension is to return the actual fee values, with the
option of including a classification as a hint to the client of the fee
schedule being used for the object (domain). There is no concept of a
“standard” or “non-standard” fee, but a “standard” or
:08 AM
To: Patrick Mevzek <p...@dotandco.com<mailto:p...@dotandco.com>>
Cc: "regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org>"
<regext@ietf.org<mailto:regext@ietf.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] REGEXT Fee Document
To address "2: Appropriate level of "
@name.com>
Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 3:08 AM
To: Patrick Mevzek <p...@dotandco.com>
Cc: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] REGEXT Fee Document
To address "2: Appropriate level of ":
There are some TLDs where a domain may ha
To address "2: Appropriate level of ":
There are some TLDs where a domain may have a premium fee for creates, but
uses base price for renewals.
In those cases it is better to have a class per command, as we want to make
different pricing choices based on that class.
Thanks,
-Pat Moroney
On Mon,
Good Afternoon,
As mentioned today in the REGEXT face to face meeting at IETF-100 in Singapore,
we have two remaining questions open on the current draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees.
1. "avail" attribute meaning on partial return of results, see section
