On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:05:50AM +0100, Mario Loffredo wrote: > Hi Gavin, > > if I understand correctly, this extension involves only those RDAP entities > in common with EPP (i.e registrant, admin, tech, billing), doesn't it? > > If so, what about the other entities (e.g. registrar, reseller) ? Should > they be represented by jCard ?
I have the same question and concern. While I support moving away from jCard, we should not be focusing only on EPP especially since RDAP was first widely adopted and is used today by non-EPP communities. RDAP itself is not a product of the EPP community but was an outgrowth of experiments conducted by the RIRs. That said, being compatible with EPP is certainly a requirement in my opinion. Given this is a rather substantial change, we should also be thorough in our approach: 1. We should dig up the pre-jCard RDAP drafts and see if there is good stuff there. 2. We should either consult or repeat the work of CN-NIC during the WEIRDS working group where they study the Whois output of all available registries and found what was needed. 3. We should also pay attention to the discussions around contacts in JMAP now going on in the IETF. Overall, what is specified here looks good to me. Here are my comments for improvements: 1. The country and region codes should be tied to ISO-3166 or a superset. 2. There should be a place to spell out both region and country. Some registries do not collect 3166 codes. 3. Phone, fax, email should be arrays because some registries collect multiples of these. 4. There should be an indicator noting that the contact information is for an individual. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
