The RDAP Profile is dependent on the RFC, so I wouldn't create a circular dependency. My recommendation is to take the lessons learned in implementing the RFC and provide guidance on how to handle it in the RFC directly.
-- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 9/24/20, 12:36 PM, "Jasdip Singh" <jasd...@arin.net> wrote: Hello Scott, James. One thought is if it could be in the RDAP profile doc for the DNRs (https://secure-web.cisco.com/1rpKdfnEnk1Kr48jubRhCwGFht_mdOahH1FgtC67Iah_PrHMRfoEWU7HXESyJMsZ1OIrHjKe_tH2TpZoS255ApsvovkAtXUNwdbGgZJvfSeVCCqQLWq9VITVXtaoP1CXev-IOKJzpfYJuv2IdKIbkjHbWdjq01FUNgLIDCk7SmcLSunTUIorviDc_vhPujx8fojQQ7yt8yaTmqpI7NSwr0xLY-umkpcXmEOIqjCmmh5tYAW-z9AdTAX4NVP2ncoTILCIvB-TlRg1bVusnHZKw-w/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fresources%2Fpages%2Frdap-operational-profile-2016-07-26-en). That way no need to update the spec. Jasdip On 9/24/20, 12:31 PM, "regext on behalf of Hollenbeck, Scott" <regext-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of shollenbeck=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Gould, James <jgould=40verisign....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 2:27 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com>; i...@antoin.nl; > regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis > > 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. I'd like to see some discussion of this suggestion, too. What do people think? Is it necessary? Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://secure-web.cisco.com/1uhNzuchIJztHae6LWfJ1n71r6h9keZVyeLYMKk6XBzqFZnzlPYXz-bTVm89lsK1lzwy0KyQfVMQ8yJyvj9OdK0HdlDXnwqlJyCWvYxKMcoWJ5UX1QpTKu1Of5rVVaQ3gqoUUX9fZbQ2dKWdiqxIcPeMU9MUI9It8e8-1ekP-xHK6Ng4p0MArEn2aMHH9Clo6k9uay0NVzUFQnTS0IU2wEzDaxqi5PNRTrhSdGWfQpVOjXyxbDih5ZMQvLhBtws3QbhtzNJ4K1o0VstyjQ_K_yICHdzzOR5kl_eewjxddliM/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregext _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
