Re: [weirds] RDAP registrar entities

Andrew Newton <> Sat, 31 October 2015 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F50E1B2FF6 for <>; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AmnmoefocAIi for <>; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 491231B2FF7 for <>; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wicll6 with SMTP id ll6so29469743wic.0 for <>; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ztofRjM1zo1a3WTRa99dxtSx3MUkPbbDrIJoTGho5OI=; b=0+DsJzOLXgL4gIvu7j9T/1czWAs0V1BB98BiZUE1KcLglG/O7XuuvParrAhLgFFOu6 cIy5zm6gwNfIWlrcY9WIb+mNgEsmS0iQU6JSL0wLjTxFCNhph5ERhvi9/8P6Y4D4fmAU l9OS1ZtfyB9RsUdmKDpP5usSCUqJEEFwOizmgNFCETDci0yIPe/eYhteC6sLKU85Bxas kvd2tplde9y/CX8grhPiUj44BtQiVzKqiz2MwgtLtn9a4+7uzstLK/IkC5R14bnkAnMv Z0X30mO0p4OV/IX75BioPIka2EHXeg8L4JEq7Cy6by5eo+TGQNP3IjUqe36uU/zLlc7V k2mg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ztofRjM1zo1a3WTRa99dxtSx3MUkPbbDrIJoTGho5OI=; b=e31BUcPRNOfjtz9QQmudd3Q9wTY4HhRgH5dtvs/QNNcWKvd/1zDAnzP6cClvsGxUIr K9RfhpSw+5S/4lmdF6kC/78q0PSOuyOfl8cxd4bbPzm5ZyubvPVpxOgPMz8IWcmnzGab vtHSB2F5ZhT0ZeLLIZtR5bboSpjLueitsQwk4qgQITd0C8Cz3hOqDYua6gCxaqM3MRoq wXsr4G/u3/D+8aP8s8FPU/7+2Y4ZbZCcyu+Wgl9AAh08dh9upbBenE6p1kE10vnxEYVc 0QlZImmghi1XxQKzDmXcu/M2HzvpwvuQyPh8Ao1Dg+byAmNzhbwDjVrm5mISyA+7Iv4g assA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn1w+m9IYOdOzv7+tyb6FgzK/6yqubJS1HcitsozXA00i5ftQWB4etGR/keveZ+CmTAGE7b
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id uj5mr17193504wjc.115.1446325988851; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:c40:0:3080:588e:96ec:6758:66ae]
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:13:08 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: Andrew Newton <>
To: Brian Mountford <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [weirds] RDAP registrar entities
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 21:13:11 -0000

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Brian Mountford <> wrote:
> In a related question, I'm trying to figure out how to return information
> about contact roles. RFC 7483 includes a roles field at the entity level. If
> we are returning information for a domain, that works fine. What do we put
> in the roles field, though, if the user queries for the contact directly?

Most likely nothing.

> The role would depend on which, if any, domain is referencing the contact.
> The contact could be a stand-alone entity with no referencing domains at
> all. Is it expected that the registry will loop through all domains, looking
> for any that reference the contact, and build a union of all roles that the
> contact plays in any domain? That seems inefficient.

I would hope your indexes aren't built in such a way that you are
scanning all of your domains. Regardless of the inefficiency, roles do
not make sense in the context of an entity query. They are meant to
describe the relationship between an entity and the object instance
containing them.

I hope that helps explain it.