Scott,
Yes, lumping the registrar object with the contact object under a single RDAP
entity object interface is the rub. We solved the problem in the RDAP Profile,
by supporting entity lookup by IANA ID (number) and registrar name (string) for
the registrar objects, and by ROID (“((\w|_){1,80}-\w{1,8}") for the contact
objects. Where there is overlap, which is registrar name (string) and ROID
((“((\w|_){1,80}-\w{1,8}") the contact takes precedence. My recommendation is
to provide guidance in the section 3.1.5 "Entity Path Segment Specification"
for this real world case:
The <handle> parameter represents an entity (such as a contact,
registrant, or registrar) identifier whose syntax is specific to the
registration provider. For example, for some DNRs, contact
identifiers are specified in [RFC5730] and [RFC5733], and
registrar identifiers are specified using the IANA Registrar ID
assigned by ICANN. The server SHOULD define a scheme
for the <handle> parameter to differentiate between the
supported entity object types (e.g., contact and registrar),
such as using different <handle> formats, using a <handle>
precedence order, or a combination of formats and precedence
order.
The SHOULD could be a MUST, but the point is to provide guidance to
implementers of the protocol.
--
JG
James Gould
Fellow Engineer
[email protected]
<applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/[email protected]>
703-948-3271
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/>
On 9/21/20, 2:01 PM, "Hollenbeck, Scott"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: regext <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Gould, James
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 11:22 AM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL:
draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis
>
> Upon review of draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis, I have the following
feedback:
>
> Use of entity lookup for registrar objects was added, but there is no
guidance
> related to handling entity lookups for different independent object types,
> where the object identifier and subsequently the <handle> may overlap. An
> example is the ROID format for contacts “((\w|_){1,80}-\w{1,8}” is unique
> from the use of the IANA Registrar ID “\d+” for registrars but not unique
> from the registrar name (“fn element” in RFC 7483 with “\w+”). The
registrar
> name is a superset of the ROID, so a <handle> following the ROID format
can
> take precedence as a contact object lookup instead of a registrar object
> lookup. A <handle> is a unique for all RDAP objects except for the entity
> object that can be mapped to multiple distinct object types (contact and
> registrar). Should the RFC cover the case of possible overlapping
<handle>
> values for different types of entity objects, such as contact and
registrar
> objects, where the server must define a unique <handle> scheme or define
> a <handle> precedence order?
Jim, RDAP doesn't have any notion of registrar entities that are somehow
different from any other type of entity, so I'm not sure what, if anything,
makes sense to say in the document. If you have a specific suggestion for text,
it would be worth sharing to see what others think.
Scott
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
