Re: [regext] RDAP questions

Andy Newton <andy@arin.net> Wed, 03 August 2016 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@arin.net>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE1A12D188 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 11:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.176
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.176 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CQSltRt8bwo2 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 11:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp4.arin.net (smtp4.arin.net [IPv6:2001:500:4:c000::32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74BCF12D12E for <regext@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 11:09:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by smtp4.arin.net (Postfix, from userid 323) id BA9E620917; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 14:09:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ASHEDGE02.corp.arin.net (ashedge02.corp.arin.net [199.43.0.123]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp4.arin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D94BD208DD; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 14:09:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from CAS02ASH.corp.arin.net (10.4.30.63) by ASHEDGE02.corp.arin.net (199.43.0.123) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.847.32; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 14:08:37 -0400
Received: from CAS01ASH.corp.arin.net (10.4.30.62) by CAS02ASH.corp.arin.net (10.4.30.63) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 14:09:14 -0400
Received: from CAS01ASH.corp.arin.net ([fe80::4803:bd5b:dc93:20f6]) by CAS01ASH.corp.arin.net ([fe80::4803:bd5b:dc93:20f6%18]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 14:09:07 -0400
From: Andy Newton <andy@arin.net>
To: Brian Mountford <mountford@google.com>
Thread-Topic: [regext] RDAP questions
Thread-Index: AQHR7aT5km0Y8vswiU23KsiGWmvyuqA3zAuA
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 18:09:07 +0000
Message-ID: <64CC805B-AD64-4127-8645-C576104AFA8B@arin.net>
References: <CALRmJyiz3yx=Gxa9LeWNUJU5CJczvc6ojjyVwUPL4mcbD5wKiw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALRmJyiz3yx=Gxa9LeWNUJU5CJczvc6ojjyVwUPL4mcbD5wKiw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [199.43.0.124]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_64CC805BAD6441278645C576104AFA8Barinnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/EaH5bc3OFkqrRsmeJQpKLqh8XUA>
Cc: "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [regext] RDAP questions
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <regext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext/>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext>, <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2016 18:09:42 -0000


On Aug 3, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Brian Mountford <mountford@google.com<mailto:mountford@google.com>> wrote:

I have a couple questions about RDAP RFC 7483.
RFC 7483 4.7. Port 43 WHOIS Server
For registries such as ourselves, is this supposed to be the registrar’s server, or ours? I would have thought the registrar’s since WHOIS AWIP is that way. But the registrar’s WHOIS is a URL, whereas this is explicitly not so.


Somebody else will have to answer as to which whois server this is suppose to reference (I think registrar). But there is no whois URI scheme, which is why that is explicitly not a URI.
RFC 7483 5.1. The Entity Object Class
The RFC indicates that among the items of information we should return for an entity is its role (admin, tech, billing, registrar, etc.). But contacts don’t necessarily have a single role. The same contact could have more than one role in more than one domain. In our database, the role tag is associated with the mapping of the domain to the contact, not with the contact itself. So it’s not clear how we can provide this information for contacts found using a direct search. For contacts displayed as part of a domain search, or for registrars, it’s not a problem.

You have it exactly correct. If somebody were to lookup a contact directly, there is no context in which to have a role and therefore the “roles” array should not be present.

-andy