Re: Changes we'd make to EPP
MICHAEL YOUNG <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CB3B4C1A.21980%[email protected]> |
Charging against objects assumes declaring a billing period and addressing deferred revenues. Yes it would work but its expensive since it hits a lot of downstream billing related systems. Best Regards, Michael Young M:647-289-1220 On 12-01-17 3:53 PM, "Theo Kramer" <[email protected]> wrote: > >On 17 Jan 2012, at 10:59 PM, Gould, James wrote: > >> I believe this is getting a bit complex and convoluted. Contacts are >> first class objects in themselves as defined by RFC 5733, so they could >>be >> created at any point with no relation to a domain. > >Yep - so a cost associated with these would solve the problem... > >-- >Regards >Theo > >_______________________________________________ >provreg mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg