Marco, Assuming you are talking about the 2019 gTLD profile, the registry should be generating the ROIDs because it is also required of them.
-andy On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 1:52 PM Marco Schrieck <marco.schri...@internetx.com> wrote: > > As I understand it must be registered there. But as i can oversee it, there > are only Registries. > > Marco > > > On 30 January 2025 19:42:38 CET, James Mitchell <james.mitch...@iana.org> > wrote: >> >> My understanding is the EPP ROID is an identifier that is composed of a >> suffix that identifies the registry/repository to which an object belongs. >> That repository identifier should be registered in the IANA registry of EPP >> Repository Identifiers at >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/epp-repository-ids. I can’t speak to >> whether a registration is necessary for your use case – that would appear to >> be up to those writing the (test) requirements. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> James >> >> >> >> From: InterNetX - Marco Schrieck <marco.schri...@internetx.com> >> Organization: InterNetX GmbH >> Date: Thursday, January 30, 2025 at 7:14 AM >> To: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org> >> Subject: [Ext] [regext] Clarification on ROID Usage for Registrars in Thin >> Registry RDAP Implementations >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> o Are there best practices for mapping internal registrar IDs to RDAP >> handle or roid fields? >> >> o >> >> o Did the 2019 discussions formalize any extensions (e.g., custom JSON >> fields) for registrars to bypass ROID requirements? >> >> o >> >> o How do we resolve errors like “identifier not registered in EPPROID” if >> ROIDs are registry-managed but unavailable to registrars? >> >> § >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 _______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
