Re: Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol

I weighed in earlier but it might have been lost in the noise

> I am now agnostic on whether to use <info> or <check> for this extension
> (having previously been in favour of <info>). When I originally wrote
> the predecessor to this extension back in 2011, I did have some
> reservations about which command to use, and spoke to Patrick Mevzek who
> (at the time) agreed with my decision to use <check>.
> 
> If anyone else has thoughts about the choice of command to extend,
> please speak now!



I like the principle of extending <info>, it's in keeping with the concept of retrieving clarifying information, whereas <check> was meant to be cheap, fast, light-weight.

There are significant cases of implementations where the underlying assumption is that <check> is a cheap query.  Some of which I was directly involved with :-)

-Michael Young
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg