Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup
rfc8748-20

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