Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis

[Tom Harrison <[e-mail]>]

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