On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 04:03:40PM +0000, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >>> 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.
I agree with Scott and Jasdip on this point. -Tom _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
