Re: Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol

On 04/11/2013 22:29, Seth Goldman wrote:
> I agree with James' suggestion that the extension should be orthogonal
> to the billable command, and it should return the fee associated with
> that command.

The latest version does this - see Section 2.2 of the draft published on
the IETF website.

> Even better would be to have two possible modes of the extension: the
> first would be a "dry-run" mode that would return the fee associated
> with the command, and the second would let the registrar to pass the fee
> with the command and have the registry fail if the fee doesn't match the
> actual billable amount. That way there can be no confusion as to what
> amount the registrar is getting charged.

I was contacted off-list by another registry who have implemented an
extension very similar to mine. Their extension provides a mechanism
whereby the client includes the expected fee (previously obtained by
performing a lookup) in the command. The server can then reject the
command if the fee submitted does not match what it calculates it to be.

This ensures that both client and server agree what the fee for the
transaction is, before it takes place.

I very much like this idea and am planning on incorporating it into the
next version of my draft.

G.

-- 
Gavin Brown
Chief Technology Officer
CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC)
Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services
for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries
https://www.centralnic.com/

CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with
company number 8576358. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London,
EC2R 6AR.
_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg