Hello, On 10/7/20 03:17, Tom Harrison wrote:
>>> 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. I think it's problematic to have a standard like this (which will eventually have to be implemented by all ICANN-regulated registries) impose such a requirement (unique handles across all object types) out of the blue when there are already hundreds of databases out there that were not build with this assumption in mind. Sure, a migration of non-unique handles is possible, and we did that when ICANN demanded a specific ROID prefix per TLD, but that was a minor change as the ROID isn't really used for operationally addressing anything. Renaming contact IDs and/or registrar IDs would have more of an impact, as it would also require all registrars to update their own databases/configurations as well to reflect the new handles. If "using a <handle> precedence order" means that a server can choose to e.h. just deliver the contact when there's a registrar with the same handle, that's an acceptably lenient interpretation. Otherwise, no assumption about the uniqueness of entity handles should be made long after the fact. Best regards, Thomas -- TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES® Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH Thomas Corte Technologiepark Phone: +49 231 9703-222 Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 D-44227 Dortmund E-Mail: thomas.co...@knipp.de Germany _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
