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

["Thomas Corte (TANGO support)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

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,

Thomas

-- 
TANGO REGISTRY SERVICES®
Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH                    Thomas Corte
Technologiepark                             Phone: [phone]
Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9                       Fax: [phone]
D-44227 Dortmund                      E-Mail: [e-mail]
Germany