Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8748, changed abstract to 'Given the expansion of the DNS namespace and the proliferation of novel business models, it is desirable to provide a method for Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) clients to query EPP servers for the fees and credits associated with various billable transactions and provide expected fees and credits for certain commands and objects.  This document describes an EPP extension mapping for registry fees.', changed pages to 30, changed standardization level to Proposed Standard, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2020-03-14, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
I continue to be confused as to why it's desired to require a server to have
a single global policy knob for whether to return certain (e.g.) balance information,
and to rely on an underdocumented convention for how this requirement interacts
with error responses that would otherwise reflect an internal inconsistency in the
document.  But the description seems to be as intended, so I will not hold up publication.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENT items.

Two editorial matters that seem to have come up in the edits.
** To address the discuss point "Section 6.1.  This section needs a normative reference to W3C Schema as the format of the blob between the BEGIN and END tags.", [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1-20041028] was added as a reference (thank you!) but not cited in the text.  Please cite that reference in Section 6.1 (or earlier)

** Per IDnits:  "== Missing Reference: 'RFC5646' is mentioned on line 449, but not defined"

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. I have only one COMMENT and one NITS see below.

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENT ==

-- Section 3.4 --
C.1) Any reason to have a negative value for <fee:credit> ? This seems counter-intuitive to me.

== NITS ==

Introducing <fee:cd> earlier in the text would improve the readability of the document.

[Ballot discuss]
** There a few easy clarifications that need to be regarding the cardinality of attributes:
-- Section 3.1.  Is the use of command@name optional?  The schema suggests that it is and the text in this section doesn’t making any claims.  If blank, how should such a command be processed?

-- Section 3.1.  If command@name=”custom”, MUST  command@customName be present?  If not, what are the processing instructions to a recipient?

-- Section 3.1 and 3.8.  Can a client send a command@subphase attribute without a command@phase?  The schema suggests this is possible and clarifying text provide no guidance.  It seems like this should be an error.

-- Section 3.4.  Can a fee@lang be present without fee@description?  The schema suggests it can but the text provides no direction.  If this is possible, what should implementers do with a @lang without a @description?

** Section 6.1.  This section needs a normative reference to W3C Schema as the format of the blob between the BEGIN and END tags.

[Ballot comment]
** Section 3.4 and 3.9  Per fee@lang and reason@lang, the text don’t explicitly describe how to specify a language.  It must be inferred from the schema.

** Section 3.4.2.  The format of the grace period is not described in the text.  It must be inferred from the schema.

** Section 4.  Mixing the schema Boolean notation between false being “0” or “false” is confusing.  In one paragraph, “The server MUST return avail=’0’” but in another “the server MUST set the ‘avail’ attribute … to false”

[Ballot discuss]
I think (at least with the present formulation) we need greater clarity
on when the "it's up to server policy whether to include, but that
policy must be the same for all transactions" elements (<fee:balance>
and <fee:creditLimit>) are returned, as at present there seems to be an
internal inconsistency in the text.  Section 3.5 and 3.6 just talk about
including them "in responses to all 'transform' or billable commands",
but then we have more qualified text such as (but not limited to) in
Section 5.2.5 that only has <fee:updData> (and its children) included
when the <update> has been processed successfully.  So, are
<fee:balance> and <fee:creditLimit> supposed to be included in error
responses or not?

[Ballot comment]
It might be helpful to note somewhere that <fee:cd> stands for "check
data", as per stock EPP, since we use the term a few times before we get
to the <fee:chkData> context and its definition.

Section 1

  Given the expansion of the DNS namespace, and the proliferation of
  novel business models, it is desirable to provide a method for EPP

It's not clear to me whether all readers (whether now or in ten years)
will have the context to appreciate what is meant by these background
clauses.

Section 3.3


  When querying for fee information using the <check> command, the
  <fee:period> element is used to indicate the units to be added to the
  registration period of objects by the <create>, <renew> and
  <transfer> commands.  This element is derived from the
  <domain:period> element described in [RFC5731].

The word "units" here is really confusing me.  Even after reading the
rest of the document (and 5731's definition of periodType) it still
feels like there's some words missing here.

Section 3.4

  A server MAY respond with multiple <fee:fee> and <fee:credit>
  elements in the same response.  In such cases, the net fee or credit
  applicable to the transaction is the arithmetic sum of the values of
  each of the <fee:fee> and/or <fee:credit> elements.  This amount
  applies to the total additional validity period applied to the object
  (where applicable) rather than to any incremental unit.

"unit" here is also confusing to me, though less so.  I think what's
going on here is just the common-sense "the sum of all fees/credits
applies for the conceptual 'sum' of all the indicated registry
operations taken together", in which case I might suggest to
s/incremental unit/individual component of the transaction/.

  description: an OPTIONAL attribute which provides a human-readable
  description of the fee.  Servers should provide documentation on the
  possible values of this attribute, and their meanings.  An OPTIONAL
  "lang" attribute MAY be present to identify the language of the
  returned text and has a default value of "en" (English).

I assume we're reusing the "lang" semantics from 5730 (which in turn
relies on 4646), but it's probably worth being explicit about it.

Section 3.4.3

  If a <fee:fee> element has a "grace-period" attribute then it MUST
  also be refundable and the "refundable" attribute MUST be true.  If
  the "refundable" attribute of a <fee:fee> element is false then it
  MUST NOT have a "grace-period" attribute.

If a client receives a response that contravenes these requirements,
what should it do?

Section 3.5, 3.6

For these elements that the server MUST include in all responses if it
chooses to include them in (any) responses, do we expect that to be
global server policy, or potentially tailored to individual clients?
(Also, I'm vaguely curious how much it could increase the response
footprint, not that XML is a terribly concise representation to start
with.)

Section 3.7

  If a server makes use of this element, it should provide clients with
  a list of all the values that the element may take via an out-of-band
  channel.  Servers MUST NOT use values which do not appear on this
  list.

I think we generally dislike to rely on out-of-band channels to quite
this extent, though it's not clearly wrong for this case.  I'm somewhat
curious (not necessarily to include in the document) what existing
out-of-band channels for this look like, though.

Section 4

  The server MUST return avail="0" in its response to a <check> command
  for any object in the <check> command that does not include the
  <fee:check> extension for which the server would likewise fail a
  domain <create> command when no <fee> extension is provided for that
  same object.

nit: this wording makes it sound like avail="0" is scoped to the object,
as opposed to the check data.  So maybe s/for any object/if any object/?

  If a server receives a <check> command from a client, which results
  in no possible fee combination but where a fee is required, the
  server MUST set the "avail" attribute of the <fee:cd> element to
  false and provide a <fee:reason>.

nit: I'm not sure how to interpret "where a fee is required" just given
what's in this document.

  If the currency or total fee provided by the client is less than the
  server's own calculation of the fee for that command, then the server
  MUST reject the command with a 2004 "Parameter value range" error.

How can a currency be "less than the server's own calculation"?  (I
assume this is supposed to be "currency is different".)

Section 5.1.1

  When the server receives a <check> command that includes the
  extension elements described above, its response MUST contain an
  <extension> element, which MUST contain a child <fee:chkData>
  element.  The <fee:chkData> element MUST contain a <fee:currency>
  element and a <fee:cd> for each element referenced in the client
  <check> command.

Can we be more precise about "for each element referenced in the client
<check> command"?  ("No" is a valid answer.)  Specifically, does this
apply to the <domain:check> child elements in the <check>, or to the
<fee:check> extension elements, or something else?  (My guess from the
examples is the former.)

  o  A <fee:command> element matching each <fee:command> (unless the
      "avail" attribute of the <fee:cd> if false) that appeared in the
      corresponding <fee:check> of the client command.  This element MAY
      have the OPTIONAL "standard" attribute, with a default value of
      "0" (or "false"), which indicates whether the fee matches the fee
      of the "standard" classification (see section 3.7).  This element
      MAY have the OPTIONAL "phase" and "subphase" attributes, which
      SHOULD match the same attributes in the corresponding
      <fee:command> element of the client command if sent by the client.

I don't think I see how the SHOULD could be applicable -- doesn't
Section 3.8 place tight requirements on server behavior and errors
regarding phase/subphase in requests?  That is, I think the descriptive
"will match" would be appropriate here.

  The <fee:command> element(s) MAY have the following child elements:

  o  An OPTIONAL <fee:period> element (as described in Section 3.3),
      which contains the same unit that appeared in the <fee:period>
      element of the command.  If the value of the preceding
      <fee:command> element is "restore", this element MUST NOT be
      included, otherwise it MUST be included.  If no <fee:period>
      appeared in the client command (and the command is not "restore")
      then the server MUST return its default period value.

I think we need some caveat language ("if present"?) for "the same unit
that appeared in the <fee:period> element of the command", since that
element is OPTIONAL in the command in question.
nit: is this the "preceding <fee:command> element" or "parent
<fee:command> element"?  Also, the rhetorical value of the "OPTIONAL" is
unclear, as there's no server choice in the matter -- its
presence/absence is fully determined by the <fee:command> value.

  If the "avail" attribute of the <fee:cd> element is true and if no
  <fee:fee> elements are present in a <fee:command> element, this
  indicates that no fee will be assessed by the server for this
  command.

  If the "avail" attribute is true, then the <fee:command> element MUST
  NOT contain a <fee:reason> element.

In this second quoted paragraph, is this the "avail" attribute only of
<fee:command> or does it apply to <fee:cd> as well?

Section 5.2.1

  The server MUST fail the <create> command if the <fee:fee> provided
  by the client is less than the server fee.

I think we are more specific about this ("Parameter value range" error)
in Section 4, which is also a MUST-level requirement.

It's perhaps a bit anachronous to have a domain-creation example from
1999 when the -00 of this document's precedessor wasn't until 2013.

Section 5.2.3

[The examples here are only from 2005; progress!]

Section 7

Thank you for addressing the points discussed in the secdir review.
That said, the text of this section still feels a bit sparse, with it
mostly being bare statements without much discussion of the motivation
for or consequences of many of the requirements at hand.  For example,
we could say something about why it's important to provide
confidentiality/integrity protection for financial data, say more about
what the "needed level of [...] protection" is, and reiterate that the
transport protocol has to do so because there are no in-band EPP
mechanisms to do so.  It would also be fine to reiterate any key
considerations from 5730/5731, if there are any that seem particularly
relevant (but it's also fine to not do so).

Also, I think that it's important to add "peer authentication" to the
list of protections provided by the transport -- it's important to know
who you're talking to when sending financial information!  (Though, the
client is just sending its estimate of the server's fee schedule, which
is a lot less sensitive than sending its current balance.)

[Ballot comment]
Firstly, thank you for working with Carlos to address the OpsDir comments -- he raised some good points (and is nicer than me), so I'm going to be a bit more of a stickeler than he was.

"A <fee:fee> element MUST have a non-negative value." -- Yes, zero is a non-negative value (Hi Barry!), but not listing it explicitly seems like it's just asking for someone to do something like:
## Estimate how many transactions like this we can do:
total_balance / fee     
or something similar. Simply mentioning the word should help lazy coders take this corner case into account.

How would:
A <fee:fee> element MUST must have a zero or greater value
work for you?

Also, I must admit I found this bit surprising:
"A <fee:credit> element MUST have a negative value."

If I go to Payless and return a pair of shoes, they give me a **credit** of $20, not of -$20.
I really think that the credit element should either be treated in the same way, or you could do away with the credit elemans and just have negative "fees" (if I open my credit-card bill and see a charge of -$20 I know what it means), or if you don't want to do that,  provide some clear warning text around this section.
If I were implementing this, and not paying sufficient attention I'd calculate "new_balance = old_balance - fees + credits" -- a simple phrase or two should help prevent stupid errors.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-16. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the ns namespace on the IETF XML Registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a single namespace is to be registered as follows:

ID: epp:fee-1.0
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp:fee-1.0
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Second, in the schema registry also on the IETF XML Registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/

a single schema is to be registered as follows:

ID: epp:fee-1.0
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:epp:fee-1.0
Filename: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this also requests a registration in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Third, in the Extensions for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/epp-extensions/

a single, new registration is to be made as follows:

Name of Extension: Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Document status: Standards Track
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Registrant Name and Email Address: IESG
TLDs: Any
IPR Disclosure: None
Status: Active
Notes: None

As this also requests a registration in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The working group needs to respond to the Gen-ART, SecDir, and OpsDir reviews, including fixing up the Security Considerations.  This will definitely need a revised I-D, and I'm holding this in "Waiting for AD Go-Ahead" until that's done.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-07-08):

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: jgould@verisign.com, regext-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees@ietf.org, James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>, barryleiba@gmail.com, regext@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-16.txt> (Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Registration Protocols Extensions WG
(regext) to consider the following document: - 'Registry Fee Extension for
the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)'
  <draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-16.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-07-08. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Given the expansion of the DNS namespace, and the proliferation of
  novel business models, it is desirable to provide a method for
  Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) clients to query EPP servers
  for the fees and credits and provide expected fees and credits for
  certain commands and objects.  This document describes an EPP
  extension mapping for registry fees.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Technical Summary

This document describes an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
extension mapping for registry fees.

Working Group Summary

draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees is on standards track.  This extension adds
additional elements to the EPP domain name mapping defined in RFC 5731,
which is an internet standard.

Document Quality

This document has been widely discussed on the mailing lists of the regext
and eppext working groups.  The authors have addressed all comments and many
changes have been incorporated in the document. 

CentralNic has a working implementation of this specification and other
domain name registries have implemented earlier versions of the specification.


Personnel

Document shepherd is James Gould, jgould@verisign.com
Area Director is Adam Roach, adam@nostrum.com

Shepherd Comments

As document shepherd I have verified that all XML examples against the provided 
schema and EPP schemas from RFC 5730 and RFC 5371. Some examples have left
out part of the XML to be more concise and better show the point of the introduced
changes. These examples have been verified by the document shepherd with added
XML data.

The author has confirmed following BCP78 and BCP79 in the document header.
No IPR disclosures have been submitted for this document.

The IANA considerations follow the defined format for the submission to the XML and
EPP registries.

All normative and informative references have been verified.

After carefully reviewing the mailings lists of the regext, eppext and provreg working
groups I found an objection with the inclusion of the boolean "standard"
attribute in the <fee:command> element of the check response.  Upon further review
of the draft, the location of the "standard" attribute was placed in the
<fee:command> element of the check command instead of the check response. 
At IETF-102, a meeting was held with a group that were involved with the
issue, with the exclusion of Pat Moroney, and including Alex Mayrhofer's
previously provided comments.  An overview of the meeting was presented
and discussed at the REGEXT WG meeting and the meeting notes were posted
to the REGEXT mailing list (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/dykfIv-Edy5ZAdWd1cTnPPnifzc).
The result of the meeting was the agreement to include the "standard" attribute but to
move it from the check command (commandType) to the check response (commandDataType). 
Roger Carney made the change in draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-12.  After resolution of this
issue, I believe that there is broad consensus for this document.

As document shepherd I believe this document is ready for publication.