Hello team, 
 
Could you please let us know if any information is already available to cover 
our question?
 
We are looking forward to a response from you.
_____________
 
Best regards,
Daria Sydorenko
Product Coordinator - Domains Compliance
Namecheap/Spaceship
 

> On 05/27/2025 2:33 PM EEST Ksenia Chuprina <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
>  
>  
> Hello Marc,
> 
> Thank you for passing my query to the working group.
> 
> We appreciate your efforts on RDAP, and if it helps you can use our Spaceship 
> RDAP Production environment with .ote domain names for tests, e.g.
> https://rdap.spaceship.com/domain/xn--20001013-01-75066601--1726844587268632-17da086aa.work.ote
>  
> 
> This is the only approach we can currently suggest. And just for you to know, 
> we have not yet upgraded to the RDAP 2024 version. Should that suit you, let 
> me know, and I will provide a few more .ote domain names.
> 
> Have a wonderful one ahead!
> 
> > On 05/26/2025 3:45 PM EEST Marc Blanchet <[email protected]> wrote:
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click 
> > links unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
> > 
> > Hello,
> >  I’ll let the wg respond to your query. I’m writing to you because I’m the 
> > author of the RDAP Browser mobile app (iOS and Android). I’m working on a 
> > major update of both versions which will include Redacted. (I was one 
> > pushing for a better solution than just random strings saying no data 
> > here). If you have any test server/infrastructure that would contain the 
> > real data but in a non-production mode, and interested in interop testing, 
> > let’s talk!
> >  
> > Regards, Marc.
> > 
> > 
> > > Le 22 mai 2025 à 13:10, Ksenia Chuprina 
> > > <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > > Greetings Team,
> > > 
> > > I am a Business Analyst at Namecheap Inc, a Domain Registrar.
> > > 
> > > We are currently working on the upgrade of our RDAP to the version 2024 
> > > and we have questions about entities redaction. We reached ICANN, but 
> > > they have forwarded us to you. Hope you can help us with that:
> > >  
> > > 1. We mainly use the redaction by ‘Replacement Value' method. We checked 
> > > that for the ‘Removal' method we can reference the whole object in the 
> > > 'redacted' member if all fields of that object are removed (e.g. Tech 
> > > contact).
> > > 
> > > Can we do the same for the ‘Replacement Value’ method or do we need to 
> > > reference each redacted field separately in the ‘redacted’ member?
> > > 
> > > 2. Many child members of the ‘redacted’ member are marked as ‘optional’ 
> > > in the RFC9537 
> > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9537.html#name-redaction-by-removal-method.
> > > 
> > > Is it totally up to us whether to include them or not, or do they become 
> > > obligatory on a certain condition?
> > > 
> > > In particular, we have doubts about ‘postPath’ and ‘method’ members when 
> > > using the ‘Replacement Value’ redaction method, but it would be best to 
> > > know the approach to all members.
> > > 
> > > 3. In the ‘name’ member of the ‘redacted’ member, can we always use the 
> > > ‘description’ field or is it a must to use the ‘type’ field for the 
> > > registered redacted names?
> > > 
> > > If the latter is the case, where do we find the ‘registered redacted 
> > > names’? Are those the Values in the Appendix E of the RDAP Response 
> > > Profile 
> > > https://validator.rdap.org/specs/gtld/2024-02/rdap-response-profile-21feb24-en.pdf#page=16?
> > > 
> > > FYI We checked that we will have more contact sets/fields than covered in 
> > > the Appendix, and also such values as ‘Registrant contact’ to reference 
> > > the whole object are absent in it, that’s why we are wondering if we can 
> > > always stick to the ‘description’ field.
> > > 
> > > 4. Do we get this right that we can choose either ‘type’ or ‘description’ 
> > > field In the reason member of the ‘redacted’ member, or are they both 
> > > required? Where can we find the list of ‘registered redacted reasons’?
> > > We saw Registries using ‘Server policy’ as a reason, is that okay to use 
> > > that by default?
> > > 
> > > Looking forward to hearing from you.
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Best regards,
> > > 
> > > Ksenia Chuprina
> > > Business Analyst
> > > BA&P Department
> > > 
> > > Namecheap Inc.
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > regext mailing list -- [email protected]
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> > > 
> > 
>  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Ksenia Chuprina
> Business Analyst
> BA&P Department
> 
> Namecheap Inc.
> 
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to