[regext] [RDAP] rdapConformance mandatory?

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Tue, 07 July 2020 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: regext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FEE93A0C5C for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bRbNLptWG1X3 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (mx4.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:2::4:12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98BA43A0C5B for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 06:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.nic.fr (localhost []) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id 61FDE280108 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:07:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 500) id 5CFDA280548; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:07:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from relay01.prive.nic.fr (relay01.prive.nic.fr [IPv6:2001:67c:2218:15::11]) by mx4.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55B8C280108 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:07:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from b12.nic.fr (b12.users.prive.nic.fr []) by relay01.prive.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5255A642C582 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:07:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by b12.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 414D2400E9; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:07:26 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:07:26 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: regext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200707130726.GA26578@nic.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 10.4
X-Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-9-amd64 x86_64
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000001, version=1.2.2
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: 2019.11.5.63017
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/SJ3Y9g7awo43p_bOQ93TIulDSP4>
Subject: [regext] [RDAP] rdapConformance mandatory?
X-BeenThere: regext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 07 Jul 2020 13:07:30 -0000

I've found a RDAP client which crashes, apparently when there is no
rdapConformance in the answer.

RFC 7483 seems very liberal. It does not say that rdapConformance is

Any opinion, backed by chapter and verse of RFC 7483, about wether
this member is really necessary?