> -----Original Message----- > From: Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com> > Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 11:41 AM > To: jasd...@arin.net; Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com>; > mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it; gal...@elistx.com; regext@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext- > rfc7482bis > > >> The phrase 'registry-unique identifier' connotes a unique lookup key for > entities, irrespective of their type. It puts the onus on a registry to > ensure so. > Does that not suffice? > > There are cases where the entity lookup key is not unique, since the RDAP > entity object can support multiple independent registry objects (contact and > registrar). The recommended text provides guidance for this use 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 question is whether the RDAP protocol should provide guidance with > how to handle overlapping non-unique handles.
I don't think it should. A Jasdip pointed out, the definition of a handle notes that they're supposed to be registry-unique. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
