4 ms·

It is a bit odd, but I have friends in African countries with TLDs that need to be registered via paper forms / GPG-signed emails only. This move by Google jus

by rdrey 10y ago

It is a bit odd, but I have friends in African countries with TLDs that need to be registered via paper forms / GPG-signed emails only. This move by Google just massively simplified the barriers to entry for small countries running their own ccTLDs in a more modern way. (I work for a registrar, dealing with ccTLD idiosyncracies all day. If more registries adopt common premium price extensions, etc, it will make my life a lot easier, too.)

robalfonso 10y ago
I work for a registrar as well. You are right, I hadn't considered ccTLD's What I find really insidious about ccTLD registries is the crazy rules they have (and therefore the crazy business rules I must use to support them) this doesn't fix that, but as you pointed out it might help some of those small ones that are otherwise out of luck.
- talideon 10y ago
  Well, unlike gTLDs, ICANN have no control over what ccTLD registries do. Personally, I much prefer dealing with ccTLD registries who behave like gTLD registries (.me, .co, &c.), but those are few and far between. Smaller ccTLDs are unlikely to use this though: it makes more sense for them to contract out the technical side of things than run their own, with .cm being an example of a registry that shouldn't run their own infrastructure.
  - robalfonso 10y ago
    Incidentally I find that to be a smart business move for them as well. I mean if you behave like a gTLD you integrate much faster than say .es where you have all kinds of offset rules you must apply to their expiration or .nl who give you a one day window to renew!
    - talideon 10y ago
      You'd think that, but trying to convince registries to go down that route is head wrecking. And then you have the likes of the .ie domain registry (IEDR) who use their own vaguely EPP-like protocol that works nothing like normal registries with a set of needlessly bizarre policies specific to them. Ugh.
- CydeWeys 10y ago
  There's one big obvious advantage of open source registries, from the perspective of registrars: You can look at our source code and figure out exactly what we're doing.
CydeWeys 10y ago
You'll be happy to know that we support Gavin Brown's fee extension: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brown-epp-fees-00 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brown-epp-fees-00 The implementation is here: https://github.com/google/nomulus/tree/master/java/google/registry/model/domain https://github.com/google/nomulus/tree/master/java/google/re... And a sample domain create EPP message with an attached fee from our test suite: https://github.com/google/nomulus/blob/master/javatests/google/registry/model/domain/testdata/domain_create_fee.xml https://github.com/google/nomulus/blob/master/javatests/goog...
- robalfonso 10y ago
  Can I just say, anyone who uses the fee extension over crazy price api's or downloaded lists is my friend!
  - talideon 10y ago
    Yup! And I wish the likes of Rightside would scrap their extension and just use Gavin's work.
  - CydeWeys 10y ago
    We support downloadable static premium price lists too (it's all that some registrars can handle), but yes, obviously we prefer the price extension too. Here's the entry point into the static premium pricing lists if you're curious: https://github.com/google/nomulus/blob/master/java/google/registry/model/pricing/StaticPremiumListPricingEngine.java https://github.com/google/nomulus/blob/master/java/google/re... Said lists are imported into the system from the CSV file format that is given to registrars by this command-line tool: https://github.com/google/nomulus/blob/master/java/google/registry/tools/CreateOrUpdatePremiumListCommand.java https://github.com/google/nomulus/blob/master/java/google/re... By the way, can I just say as an aside, that it's so awesome that I can finally link to and discuss our code in the open (I wrote this pricing stuff under stuff).
- rdrey 10y ago
  From my experience, that's the most common fee extension. Thanks! I saw that donuts has a test EPP endpoint to try nomulus. I will probably connect to it soon for some integration testing. My only issues when using this extension: * It's super flexible. I have to guess if a fee is an EAP fee based on the description, for example. (Registries haven't standardised on anything.) * Querying for all operations * terms is very verbose. * The extension itself has multiple versions. We support fee-0.5 - fee-0.8.

by rdrey 10y ago

robalfonso 10y ago

I work for a registrar as well. You are right, I hadn't considered ccTLD's What I find really insidious about ccTLD registries is the crazy rules they have (and therefore the crazy business rules I must use to support them) this doesn't fix that, but as you pointed out it might help some of those small ones that are otherwise out of luck.

talideon 10y ago
Well, unlike gTLDs, ICANN have no control over what ccTLD registries do. Personally, I much prefer dealing with ccTLD registries who behave like gTLD registries (.me, .co, &c.), but those are few and far between. Smaller ccTLDs are unlikely to use this though: it makes more sense for them to contract out the technical side of things than run their own, with .cm being an example of a registry that shouldn't run their own infrastructure.
- robalfonso 10y ago
  Incidentally I find that to be a smart business move for them as well. I mean if you behave like a gTLD you integrate much faster than say .es where you have all kinds of offset rules you must apply to their expiration or .nl who give you a one day window to renew!
  - talideon 10y ago
    You'd think that, but trying to convince registries to go down that route is head wrecking. And then you have the likes of the .ie domain registry (IEDR) who use their own vaguely EPP-like protocol that works nothing like normal registries with a set of needlessly bizarre policies specific to them. Ugh.
CydeWeys 10y ago
There's one big obvious advantage of open source registries, from the perspective of registrars: You can look at our source code and figure out exactly what we're doing.

CydeWeys 10y ago

You'll be happy to know that we support Gavin Brown's fee extension: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brown-epp-fees-00 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brown-epp-fees-00 The implementation is here: https://github.com/google/nomulus/tree/master/java/google/registry/model/domain https://github.com/google/nomulus/tree/master/java/google/re... And a sample domain create EPP message with an attached fee from our test suite: https://github.com/google/nomulus/blob/master/javatests/google/registry/model/domain/testdata/domain_create_fee.xml https://github.com/google/nomulus/blob/master/javatests/goog...

robalfonso 10y ago
Can I just say, anyone who uses the fee extension over crazy price api's or downloaded lists is my friend!
- talideon 10y ago
  Yup! And I wish the likes of Rightside would scrap their extension and just use Gavin's work.
- CydeWeys 10y ago
  We support downloadable static premium price lists too (it's all that some registrars can handle), but yes, obviously we prefer the price extension too. Here's the entry point into the static premium pricing lists if you're curious: https://github.com/google/nomulus/blob/master/java/google/registry/model/pricing/StaticPremiumListPricingEngine.java https://github.com/google/nomulus/blob/master/java/google/re... Said lists are imported into the system from the CSV file format that is given to registrars by this command-line tool: https://github.com/google/nomulus/blob/master/java/google/registry/tools/CreateOrUpdatePremiumListCommand.java https://github.com/google/nomulus/blob/master/java/google/re... By the way, can I just say as an aside, that it's so awesome that I can finally link to and discuss our code in the open (I wrote this pricing stuff under stuff).
rdrey 10y ago
From my experience, that's the most common fee extension. Thanks! I saw that donuts has a test EPP endpoint to try nomulus. I will probably connect to it soon for some integration testing. My only issues when using this extension: * It's super flexible. I have to guess if a fee is an EAP fee based on the description, for example. (Registries haven't standardised on anything.) * Querying for all operations * terms is very verbose. * The extension itself has multiple versions. We support fee-0.5 - fee-0.8.