There is only the thin-to-thick transition policy, there is no thick-to-thin transition policy. Thick registries with minimal data set are still thick.
Rubens > Em 31 de jan. de 2025, à(s) 02:08, Marco Schrieck > <marco.schri...@internetx.com> escreveu: > > Hi Rubens, > > No its the other way. More and more gTLDs will get thin. > > Ciao > Marco > > > On 31 January 2025 00:31:45 CET, Rubens Kuhl > <rubensk=40nic...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >> Don’t the remaining thin registries allow for thin to thick migration on a >> granular basis ? >> >> >> Rubens >> >> >>> Em 30 de jan. de 2025, à(s) 18:24, Marco Schrieck >>> <marco.schri...@internetx.com> escreveu: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> Yes the registry should generate them, but what with thin Registries. >>> >>> Only we as registrar have the contact data. So we don't have a registry >>> generated roid. >>> >>> I can generate on but the rdap profile checker require me to register the >>> suffix at iana. >>> >>> Eg >>> 1234567-IX >>> >>> If i don't register it we got an error the we use uncorrect value. >>> "Globally unique identifier not registered in EPPROID" >>> >>> At the moment we let it empty and got a warning instead of error. >>> >>> Marco >>> >>> >>> On 30 January 2025 22:00:50 CET, "Andrew Newton (andy)" <a...@hxr.us> wrote: >>>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
