Re: [weirds] RDAP registrar entities

Andy Newton <> Fri, 30 October 2015 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D2E1A8928 for <>; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iy2JwdslBOi9 for <>; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:500:4:13::33]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 614FA1A896C for <>; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 323) id 11A0E164F85; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:09:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFFBB164F7D; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:09:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:17:35 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::905e:9b4d:2909:f55a]) by ([fe80::54ae:f9de:2f8b:1072%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:09:39 -0400
From: Andy Newton <>
To: Brian Mountford <>
Thread-Topic: [weirds] RDAP registrar entities
Thread-Index: AQHREyxU/5P+LzobD0C321JNH0r2Mp6EiEAA
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:09:38 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_88D41CC9BC394936A47E3618695FB8A9arinnet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 17:13:32 -0000

Hi Brian,

On Oct 30, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Brian Mountford <<>> wrote:

First of all, is there a reason why registrars and contacts were lumped together into one type of thing? Just curious.

The reason is quite simple. All sorts of organizations end up being modeled the same way, with only a relationship qualifier differentiating them.

The example in RFC 7483 for a registrar included several addresses and phone numbers, as if the sample registrar also had contacts associated with it. But none of the addresses and phone numbers were marked with anything that would distinguish between the contacts (e.g. a type of "admin", "tech", etc.). Should we just take all the data we have for a registrar, including all addresses of associated contacts, and throw them into the entity JSON object one after another? Can we mark them with the contact role as a type? Or does type always need to be "home" or "work”?

This is similar to how some RIRs model ISPs. The ISP is an entity, that then has child entities for the contacts.
See as an example.

This type of thing may not be so obvious in the RFC because of the way the JSON is described. I have an RDAP JCR draft that might make it more readable.

RFC 7482 describes searching for an entity by name. In the case of our registrars, we have two things that could be a "name": the name of the registrar itself, and the name of any associated contact. Am I correct that the search is confined to the registrar name? Or are we supposed to look through to the contact names, and pass back any registrar with a matching contact?

How you limit or broaden the search is your choice. RDAP just specifies how the query is formulated by the clients. You may have requirements from a policy body about how that is to work, but the protocol is not that proscriptive.

I hope that helps.