Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-regext-epp-fees-15

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.
Back