Re: [regext] RDAP questions

Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> Thu, 23 March 2017 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@hxr.us>
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 79AC812958B for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hxr-us.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 24ZJIRmddv9n for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22b.google.com (mail-oi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93343126D74 for <regext@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id f193so8087606oib.2 for <regext@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hxr-us.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=79GS650j/6dyGJUndFrOnnMF/ktV/+ipOCUBAZQNa5c=; b=zoH2Wj1sBmxOFFkvGrzbRc035zdgxy0mQ5BqZHhmfE7ofs4EskUBQ3/JR63HfcuRJg Y+/b8xMZqXqpuv1v0iPPZ1f3YdATWjQIR/d1HEx2dzmt4ISerUkmLkD/aS2/tGacWQ/C BjV+zCayVNJYx9TlPeUJpfsdu89ExKvQFcclzJBgL7NkBu81YK8jmPLuk+Q3vGjHJPC0 fQ58QE0Z5gE3BrF3IYdj/hpgLuhiUHpN1ydjMOj7/6NFw/C1QwLB9W5q7m8majrxlaEu 36fsNgPc/B42YKLiPZRvt1TrCt+7YOIEruRxIN0D/bDOo/6CRpZnMqHL9SnlzoMduiNr 1tmA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=79GS650j/6dyGJUndFrOnnMF/ktV/+ipOCUBAZQNa5c=; b=VtDSKSzRmQihTDu8jLWzZIViilPB/rvzRrDrTfZ+l/TGdVlrfvj05fG8TGMmH9x9vD I+ICj85sYnH1ELV27tpLxtFk3MY5lBYh3oEnLanHIhxd3mu9sRbAZfM3U+y7xzYevjuJ 4Gy/RHjl0+7VOi6RphOQNEQHvnntpvfN2MbGQ2Ka7uF3tDKRBvNWHKNTQNzlExO5RvD7 6K9szj9fMe8S/FhRmxhsSrFjiTlIP/Y3e59AFkh1L0+Qzb0Q3z64wQiGDZ/KmZB/gghH rmQPe4vatllwtONtmHWx56FIfaRpTntZiY4vk1oXfnh/abtueRha7B+gVoWShfK/406D aTHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2JSxW5+3mwprsXyDaj+qwpeYSTh5ZinD85QjbPQDU7KTBC1s9Ps62emuU5mniDG/dCNo+3DxznlEXGpw==
X-Received: by 10.202.217.215 with SMTP id q206mr1801639oig.92.1490283512042; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.40.200 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [192.136.136.238]
In-Reply-To: <FC41C212-42D4-4572-A22B-ED740C4AEEDC@gmail.com>
References: <CALRmJyiz3yx=Gxa9LeWNUJU5CJczvc6ojjyVwUPL4mcbD5wKiw@mail.gmail.com> <64CC805B-AD64-4127-8645-C576104AFA8B@arin.net> <D3CF5FFE.1174C5%gustavo.lozano@icann.org> <CALRmJyi2LuoJOFAN95dZQs1H4KEKzM6pEDz=rEBZ4QmqqfHVWw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC1BbcRevbXPZY166tHLRB_eoSgir7u8W+usdmDZywFZprHbYA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAQiQRccTcBxg3fbzHVQHKzfvr3F-tDg0cFGdwCVWeXdUg5JtA@mail.gmail.com> <FC41C212-42D4-4572-A22B-ED740C4AEEDC@gmail.com>
From: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:38:31 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAQiQRd=UpT1KgsZ198gQGi_ch7okQKHxB1r7UaGW18vFMy1YA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>
Cc: Andy Newton <andy@arin.net>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>, Gustavo Lozano <gustavo.lozano@icann.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/gssOKS53h5ZLCv-gugkcHxYBkIQ>
Subject: Re: [regext] RDAP questions
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:38:34 -0000

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
<rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2) entity handles
>>>
>>> At least for DNRs the mixture of registrars and contacts seems to be
>>a
>>> bit unfortunate at first glance.
>>> For handles (in the DNR / RFC5733 sense) could conflict between
>>> registrars and contacts. Furthermore there is no (apparent) way to
>>> output a ROID which would make it easier to distinguish these two,
>>> disregarding the role of course.
>>> I could work around this by requiring a -ROIDSFX for contacts and
>>none
>>> for registrars, for example.
>>>
>>> So i think my question is how to respond to a non-search query for an
>>> ambiguous entity?
>>
>>I'm not sure I understand this. You have two entities with the same
>>handle?
>
> Yes. I think in EPP they are unambiguous.
>
> thanks,

So my reading of RFC 5730 doesn't say if ROIDs are unique within a
registry or unique within a namespace. I do have to admit I don't
understand how section 2.8 fits into it. Hopefully somebody more
authoritative can shed some light (I'm looking at you, Scott :) ).

That said, if the entity is truly unique but serves different roles,
then the ROID is good enough. If not, then you can create your own
namespace in the id.

Does that help? Because I still only have a tenuous grasp of the issue.

-andy