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

"Thomas Corte (TANGO support)" <> Wed, 07 October 2020 08:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E8363A16BF for <>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 01:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.11
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iCaVOyiuYku4 for <>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 01:46:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89C693A129E for <>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 01:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5ny46hc1z4tyV for <>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 10:46:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E367207B for <>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 10:46:52 +0200 (MESZ)
References: <> <> <20201007011718.GA5771@tomh-laptop>
From: "Thomas Corte (TANGO support)" <>
Organization: Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 10:46:52 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201007011718.GA5771@tomh-laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spamd-Bar: /
X-Rspamd-Server: v1117
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; ASN(0.00)[asn:8391, ipnet:, country:DE]; LOCAL_WL_IP(0.00)[]
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4C5ny46hc1z4tyV
Authentication-Results:; none
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [regext] WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7482bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 08:46:58 -0000


On 10/7/20 03:17, Tom Harrison wrote:

>>> 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.

I think it's problematic to have a standard like this (which will
eventually have to be implemented by all ICANN-regulated registries)
impose such a requirement (unique handles across all object types) out of
the blue when there are already hundreds of databases out there that were
not build with this assumption in mind.

Sure, a migration of non-unique handles is possible, and we did that when
ICANN demanded a specific ROID prefix per TLD, but that was a minor
change as the ROID isn't really used for operationally addressing
anything. Renaming contact IDs and/or registrar IDs would have more of an
impact, as it would also require all registrars to update their own
databases/configurations as well to reflect the new handles.

If "using a <handle> precedence order" means that a server can choose to
e.h. just deliver the contact when there's a registrar with the same
handle, that's an acceptably lenient interpretation. Otherwise, no
assumption about the uniqueness of entity handles should be made long
after the fact.

Best regards,


Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH                    Thomas Corte
Technologiepark                             Phone: +49 231 9703-222
Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9                       Fax: +49 231 9703-200
D-44227 Dortmund                      E-Mail: