On 23 March 2017 16:38:31 CET, Andrew Newton <a...@hxr.us> wrote: >On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ><rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> 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, > >So my reading of RFC 5730 doesn't say if ROIDs are unique within a >registry or unique within a namespace. I do have to admit I don't >understand how section 2.8 fits into it. Hopefully somebody more >authoritative can shed some light (I'm looking at you, Scott :) ). > >That said, if the entity is truly unique but serves different roles, >then the ROID is good enough. If not, then you can create your own >namespace in the id. > >Does that help? Because I still only have a tenuous grasp of the issue.
Unfortunately it does not since clIDType != roidType I am talking about GET /rdap/entity/clIDType but re-reading the description of "handle" in 7483 maybe it's a non-issue in practice since I can easily workaround it as local convention. thanks, _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
