Re: [regext] RDAP questions

[Brian Mountford <[e-mail]>]

OK, I will remove port43 from my RDAP output. It might make sense to
include an item in the operational profile indicating that use of the
port43 member is discouraged. That certainly was not clear to me. Thanks.

Brian

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Gustavo Lozano <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Brian, Andy,
>
> Comments inline.
>
> Regards,
> Gustavo
>
> From: regext <[e-mail]> on behalf of Andy Newton <
> [e-mail]>
> Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 11:09
> To: Brian Mountford <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [regext] RDAP questions
>
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Brian Mountford <[e-mail]> 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.
>
>
> In the case of the RDAP profile (gTLD space), the “port43” element is not
> expected to be used, because Whois/43 tcp will be deprecated in the future.
> The objective of the RDAP profile is to keep everything in RDAP, and in the
> case of “thin” registrations, the RDAP URI of the RDAP service of the
> Registrar is provided to the end-user as described in 2.3 of the RDAP
> profile (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rdap-
> operational-profile-2016-07-26-en).
>
>
> 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
>
>