Re: [regext] Questions about RDAP extensions and registration at IANA, role of prefix and version

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: regext <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Patrick Mevzek
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 1:11 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] Questions about RDAP extensions and
> registration at IANA, role of prefix and version
> 
> Hi Scott,
> 
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, at 07:04, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > Patrick, my expectation is that the value registered with IANA is the
> > exact value that should appear in an rdapConformance section. The
> > purpose of these values is to clearly identify an associated
> > specification, so one should be able to extract an identifier from an
> > RDAP response, look it up in the IANA registry, find an exact match,
> > and unambiguously identify the associated specification. We clearly
> > need to clean up this part of 7483 if/when we do 7483bis.
> 
> Thanks to have shared your views because indeed, due to the under
> specification, I was thinking more about "prefix" registration than "exact
> match".
> 
> This would be good to address in some bis process, as the current situation is
> clearly not ideal and is bound to become worse.

I'm starting work on 7483bis now. I should have it published within the next few weeks.

> Note that related to that there is at least one EPP server out there (in
> production for a real TLD) that gives this at greeting:
> 
> <objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:contact</objURI>
> <objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:host</objURI>
> <objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:domain</objURI>
> <objURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:svcsub</objURI>
> <svcExtension>
>   <extURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:neulevel</extURI>
>   <extURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1</extURI>
>   <extURI>urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:idn-1.0</extURI>
> <svcExtension>
> 
> 
> See the lack of version numbers in the schema URI provided, but not for all
> of them :-).
> 
> This can be deemed a direct violation of the protocol, but registrars still have
> to deal with it in some way.

The URNs that appear in a greeting should exactly match those that appear in a specification, are registered with IANA, should be used during login, etc. I hope that registrars can work with that server operator to make appropriate corrections.

Scott