On 21 March 2017 18:47:34 CET, Andrew Newton <a...@hxr.us> wrote: >Hi... > >On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ><rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> Another question >> >> 1) country (full name / name) versus country codes. >> >> In https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7483#section-3 you suggest to use >> alpha-2 country codes >> >> Yet autnum and network talk about >> ---8<--- >> o country -- a string containing the name of the two-character >> country code of the autnum >> ---8<--- >> >> where "the name" makes me think i should use the full name? >> Should that read >> ---8<--- >> o country -- a string containing the two-character >> country code of the autnum >> ---8<--- > >It should be the 2 character country code. Good catch. > >> >> And then there is jCard which seemingly attempts to trick me into >> using the full country name ? Lovely. > >It does seem to desire that.
As such I find 7483 requiring the country code rather inconsistent with the jCard RFC especially since we would have both "spellings" in the very same output. As ugly as it is, I'd use the full name also in 7483, deferring to the jCard RFC in a comment, FWIW. >> >> 2) entity handles >> >> At least for DNRs the mixture of registrars and contacts seems to be >a >> bit unfortunate at first glance. >> For handles (in the DNR / RFC5733 sense) could conflict between >> registrars and contacts. Furthermore there is no (apparent) way to >> output a ROID which would make it easier to distinguish these two, >> disregarding the role of course. >> I could work around this by requiring a -ROIDSFX for contacts and >none >> for registrars, for example. >> >> So i think my question is how to respond to a non-search query for an >> ambiguous entity? > >I'm not sure I understand this. You have two entities with the same >handle? Yes. I think in EPP they are unambiguous. thanks, _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
