Hi All,
I am writing to seek guidance on the handling of*ROID (Repository Object
IDentifier)*in RDAP implementations for registrars together with*thin
registry models*(where registrars hold domain/contact/host data). Our
organization acts as a registrar and is working to comply with the RDAP
profile outlined in RFC 7483 and related 2019 updates.
*Context*
*
We operate in a thin registry environment where the registry
delegates RDAP queries to registrars.
*
Our implementation uses*registrar-generated identifiers*(not ROIDs),
as the registry does not assign or store ROIDs.
*
During RDAP testing, we encountered errors such as/“globally unique
identifier not registered in EPPROID”/, suggesting a mismatch
between our identifiers and ROID expectations.
*Questions*
****
1.
RFC 7483 §10.2.4 mentions|roid|as optional. For registrars in thin
models:
2.
3.
Is it acceptable to use*registrar-generated handles*(e.g., UUIDs)
instead of ROIDs in RDAP responses?
4.
*
Are there best practices for mapping internal registrar IDs to
RDAP|handle|or|roid|fields?
*
**
*
Did the 2019 discussions formalize any extensions (e.g., custom
JSON fields) for registrars to bypass ROID requirements?
*
*
How do we resolve errors like/“identifier not registered in
EPPROID”/if ROIDs are registry-managed but unavailable to
registrars?
o
Thank you for your insights.
Ciao
Marco
--
InterNetX GmbH
Johanna-Dachs-Str. 55 • 93055 Regensburg • Germany
Tel. +49 941 59559-0
internetx.com • internetx.com/linkedin • internetx.com/twitter
Geschäftsführer:
Elias Rendón Benger (CEO), Lars Krämer
Amtsgericht Regensburg, HRB 7142
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
