Re: [regext] About conformance to RFC 8521

Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> Tue, 29 November 2022 14:13 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 0C21CC14CEE3 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:13:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.886
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hxr-us.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UoNWHFbygqhg for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:13:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw1-x112e.google.com (mail-yw1-x112e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::112e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B367C14F732 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:13:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw1-x112e.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-3bf4ade3364so89584437b3.3 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:13:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hxr-us.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=k4VaB/gNEDFyq9ZD+xES++UBl0VVEWV4R0em4EoVtlQ=; b=s/GFlrRZdcEAHKyFRIQ+lKmBOLTVHJ+1Qp7Ky4lJJiUdo8adshtDBxBiwc9iz8xSWX JJ/YRr5v6zNw4AXK+OAoSEsfiR2TCwgLMj66xLO0BttUr82trCaarnFKecHP9GetDptY ebNATlHdRviS+cZpPdaMWVTo3gFDaCNbs79s5w2vAnUO+i7dOv0eSkZFK7DZ/FevM7SN zbLv+f4RweM1CfWEfTMaAWt/JSxbtZ+8woRb5rdMzxocKFHYrHUHZKGV2yIW70FoRA0a A/lGqle9FRUwxuVWmrb+mE4IoS44vA0BuuYTGbwiDAl8gtmHpd6cgUHlUtwGIIwjHIcn VtdQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=k4VaB/gNEDFyq9ZD+xES++UBl0VVEWV4R0em4EoVtlQ=; b=6w5f67SwpcaAhlH7AXND6xx3sMB7OmowZ4GclMv/Q4ovHse3adJBJcpKRTm8/9TEDc 1w8r8qfk/DtH9p1nlSHbHwYliMIHgQtxH4J/YrX3LgxndTmwNeMHQz8aUFz8whNcW8k6 bYdmyDIoZUykElU4Tn+SnLtByioQhwJypFU0GcpE64TQcmijwvN7cqM9AD09zwgznepS rHHvSFtjTgXFYCPjcSAaOyEKwrE8jSKvfTsME4tOYMzzoAXwBmk6OwIkbs+1vSa4DXfK KLzDv0kNfjUSQQeucVWAQtrNG2Eu+iBlP6RM+OenOw0Kv/6MuoRo6ddcg0ogLyqFGFiX BrPg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pmDyb0hMgHhq/FTgBJsy7bid8B6JeynKSBseQbGlBMCg0j97aE0 +4Eqoja6acDWrzrpEVT/rGmeGMpUjiuIrJiUKT7Y31DwA8fsidVl
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf66021xN9njyQFGcRAb14CP9P68N0hEuD8lQc3hd+scCThb5RWCmmKcR2YLIhQ+IIhdbbre8BGOBx1zjO4Zkps=
X-Received: by 2002:a4a:e8c9:0:b0:4a0:4db7:fabe with SMTP id h9-20020a4ae8c9000000b004a04db7fabemr5690201ooe.73.1669730774617; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 06:06:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Y342CxeLNqyEMyte@sources.org> <3e6515447d7544cf94974e47c63e6d57@verisign.com>
In-Reply-To: <3e6515447d7544cf94974e47c63e6d57@verisign.com>
From: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 09:06:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAQiQRfe5jXZUwooF+fNg2zHqqx3B11Yj0cpoGZ6KscXSRkoCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "bortzmeyer@nic.fr" <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/1odiHP9rICfX-60rLjwknlpl6bc>
Subject: Re: [regext] About conformance to RFC 8521
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 14:13:26 -0000

On the contrary, I think Stephane has a different point here. This is
important signaling to the client that handles have object tags in
conformance to the syntax of the RFC, and most of the servers are not
abiding by it. While this is mostly an RIR thing, there was a general
question to the DEs not too long ago about domain registrars
registering object tags.

-andy

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 7:57 AM Hollenbeck, Scott
<shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: regext <regext-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Stephane Bortzmeyer
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 10:03 AM
> > To: regext@ietf.org
> > Cc: bortzmeyer@nic.fr
> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] About conformance to RFC 8521
> >
> > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links
> > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> > safe.
> >
> > While RFC 8521 says "RDAP responses that contain values described in this
> > document MUST indicate conformance with this specification by including an
> > rdapConformance [RFC7483] value of "rdap_objectTag_level_0", it is funny to
> > note that apparently not one of the registries under <https://secure-
> > web.cisco.com/1Rs133rKttQq6WgzrVwxIv1r788Y47kITSLk7826G0LPKdcIDRpU9T
> > sPzjgNdBP4aUcHetSPXqAgjv6GrqyXS1Rn2VjYvNasfNd28MTdPKk7Ou9wP22YoJh
> > ZmE0Fq3gGK5uNO4gabaT0DIU2TKaHm-
> > muMn7SJdaNkt_zLClVK3s0VE7CHRYhNLq1FDkApYONAb1TmvKeyoKP1Kz1KCw0j
> > aVqzZuYbhdsnsVVeQz4-
> > TnlS3H4PUQpYJHwDtSd25yLUe0xQQY_gpwvqgZcCbRebkIxbgxZFhyKcJyGMbgRU
> > HKU/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Frdap-object-
> > tags%2Frdap-object-tags.xml>
> > does it :-)
>
> [SAH] This is almost certainly an artifact of the confusion surrounding extension identification that has plagued RDAP implementation since the very beginning. I think (hope?) we got past that with our discussion from IETF-114. Maybe not.
>
> Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> regext mailing list
> regext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext