[regext] Re: RDAP responses for invalid domain names
Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it> Mon, 13 April 2026 08:40 UTC
Return-Path: <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
X-Original-To: regext@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: regext@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD7EDB1195B for <regext@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 01:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1776069602; bh=MC/raKaLETpa7q9jXM23S90r+7tyrEne/5lf/hsI4Ys=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=nyLYZ1TZ8SFYylPwmZ5bZNvXxR/pxBJtq2QcYtii90cuv0YvUa2PmW96cMsyPjnkV 1yEtXt9HTz3ddDsh1QArNZj4fcpuFC0DzB7VFqM+SqyfROaQ7i+HFGzWmHUo0iIlH+ k+oKhjtxfDot8Uj9qSyntX14Ngz5xzXOGhv5Uri0=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iit.cnr.it
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7XxBFsHEP_ZR for <regext@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 01:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.iit.cnr.it (mx5.iit.cnr.it [146.48.58.12]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A35E6DB1183D for <regext@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 01:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx5.iit.cnr.it 4AE33C0AB4
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iit.cnr.it; s=mx520231221; t=1776069522; bh=MC/raKaLETpa7q9jXM23S90r+7tyrEne/5lf/hsI4Ys=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=D4B22ptz55Q8gm/3O7YEB2OPvkO9pc3RGIHriR0fnrxsFbMrG5DhnS47PQUxuUd2U IYwofA1A106J9RzPJh/lO/+oPfwZoMnXOfaqsPjoN9KHnpsaO86cJlBuSlFYvXo7DB 6Y+F2rM1b7iVsaeM6p2dl6Mf6lf0B1UR6lV38WHlo693deajbMlkwUBlQyJgMKnr17 I0xP2YbzgER8Np6927E1xQb3MYldGRxTHNcbrILdNSCAo9GV4f2i0cmBKIV0f7vOq5 GXRaNdWshwBqmtl24vZ40FW3cIgDbODFxKeusYhI5JXSUFfgHUoO4DJLmSvt+0DB9q iyeOVp+Jbyudg==
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx5.iit.cnr.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE33C0AB4; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 10:38:42 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mx5.iit.cnr.it
Received: from mx5.iit.cnr.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx5.iit.cnr.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10028) with ESMTP id kKThC_KSzpiN; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 10:38:42 +0200 (CEST)
X-Relay-Autenticated: yes
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------ngx36qJ7yemOJtmwKVMBK0w0"
Message-ID: <1ac32948-4fe6-4eb1-beda-ed6882f4fa18@iit.cnr.it>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 10:38:14 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: it
To: Pawel Kowalik <kowalik=40denic.de@dmarc.ietf.org>, Jasdip Singh <jasdips@arin.net>, Andy Newton <andy@hxr.us>, "Thomas Corte (TANGO support)" <Thomas.Corte@knipp.de>, "regext@ietf.org" <regext@ietf.org>
References: <6c17aacf-881e-481b-a288-2b171c68af5e@denic.de> <PH7PR15MB60843DC2D06E128C03DFAFFDC9592@PH7PR15MB6084.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <baf0ba8b-2d49-4888-9e6e-f0f439b4b644@knipp.de> <94732267-22cb-4a8e-987d-b80872a936b8@hxr.us> <170617e5-b6db-44d8-8d20-c5a6954e96d2@knipp.de> <9f43b6c4-bd5e-4de4-b106-237c60a710b7@hxr.us> <PH7PR15MB60848C46108D9140DA244612C9592@PH7PR15MB6084.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <44123801-3b6a-4551-b83b-1e8b40c2ab5b@denic.de>
From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it>
In-Reply-To: <44123801-3b6a-4551-b83b-1e8b40c2ab5b@denic.de>
Message-ID-Hash: V2E6JGGYM4JBRD6ZMJFLK6JBOY4UASPK
X-Message-ID-Hash: V2E6JGGYM4JBRD6ZMJFLK6JBOY4UASPK
X-MailFrom: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-regext.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [regext] Re: RDAP responses for invalid domain names
List-Id: Registration Protocols Extensions Working Group <regext.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/ODe49VI6fc4gb6mWfsqlwDPl8K4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/regext>
List-Help: <mailto:regext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:regext-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:regext@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:regext-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:regext-leave@ietf.org>
Hi Pawel, if the third character is hypen (ASCII 45), example 1 is not an IDN because it begins with "xn-" instead of "xn--". Therefore, the response should be 404 if it is not registered. If the third character is the Unicode character "–" (U+2013), then it's punycode is xn--xnfdkp0gtc-pu6e.com and the response should still be 404 if it is not registered. Best, Mario Il 11/04/2026 19:26, Pawel Kowalik ha scritto: > > Hi, > > On 10.04.26 20:13, Jasdip Singh wrote: >> >> *From: *Andy Newton <andy@hxr.us> >> *Date: *Friday, April 10, 2026 at 1:57 PM >> *To: *Thomas Corte (TANGO support) <Thomas.Corte@knipp.de>, >> regext@ietf.org <regext@ietf.org> >> *Subject: *[regext] Re: RDAP responses for invalid domain names >> >> >> On 4/10/26 12:47 PM, Thomas Corte (TANGO support) wrote: >> … >> >> > But as a *registrar*, I wouldn't know where to begin here – do you >> expect each registrar to >> > determine and encode the IDN policies for each gTLD registry >> they're working with into their RDAP >> > servers, so they can decide correctly, on a per-TLD basis, whether >> a query for a specific IDN domain >> > name should yield 400 (= impossible to register) or 404 (= >> possible, but we don't sponsor it)? >> >> That does seem onerous for a registrar and unlikely something a most >> registrars can do. So 404 is the best effort. Good point. >> >> [JS] Agreed. >> > I agree as well taking registrar use-cases into account. > > I don't agree however that RDAP shall carry logic "impossible to > register" as it is not RDAP's responsibility to claim that. > > For generally invalid domain names, objectively no matter what server > policy is - like examples 1 and 3, 400 looks like appropriate response > to me as well. > > For other cases, where a name may be invalid in the server context > (because of idn language not supported, or maybe because single-digit > registration is not allowed per policy etc.) both responses 404 or 400 > look appropriate. > > 404 is just telling the domain does not exist (which is true), 400 is > telling that that such domain name does not make sense to the server. > > Kind Regards, > Pawel > > > _______________________________________________ > regext mailing list --regext@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email toregext-leave@ietf.org -- Dott. Mario Loffredo Senior Technologist Technological Unit “Digital Innovation” Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT) National Research Council (CNR) Address: Via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy Phone: +39.0503153497 Web:http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
- [regext] RDAP responses for invalid domain names Pawel Kowalik
- [regext] Re: RDAP responses for invalid domain na… Scott Hollenbeck
- [regext] Re: RDAP responses for invalid domain na… Jasdip Singh
- [regext] Re: RDAP responses for invalid domain na… Thomas Corte (TANGO support)
- [regext] Re: RDAP responses for invalid domain na… Andy Newton
- [regext] Re: RDAP responses for invalid domain na… Thomas Corte (TANGO support)
- [regext] Re: RDAP responses for invalid domain na… Andy Newton
- [regext] Re: RDAP responses for invalid domain na… Jasdip Singh
- [regext] Re: RDAP responses for invalid domain na… Pawel Kowalik
- [regext] Re: RDAP responses for invalid domain na… Mario Loffredo
- [regext] Re: RDAP responses for invalid domain na… Pawel Kowalik