> -----Original Message-----
> From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Gould, James
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 11:22 AM
> To: i...@antoin.nl; regext@ietf.org
> 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
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
