IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [regext] [RDAP] rdapConformance mandatory?

Patrick Mevzek <pm@dotandco.com> Tue, 07 July 2020 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <pm@dotandco.com>
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 D97503A0E45 for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dotandco.com header.b=HzBW9n8t; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=PqxtLGP8
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rof09b2idvcx for <regext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5C2C3A0E89 for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22A205C025A for <regext@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 11:35:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap22 ([10.202.2.72]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 07 Jul 2020 11:35:15 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dotandco.com; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm3; bh=llClo +CPEMkuMD+uM7BFdVobrh/RMyJIfvQ1wqtBnfQ=; b=HzBW9n8t1mTvNFHu9RTZJ Yb3TKeS9F34TzhLd+Gbi4S7fo5DAQTxicd4udx42isZDAdxK9B47VWiVGbOukvC5 M7jsUgzkhXFDLbIs/B20a9r/b1TrdHi2DcbEMPfUQGY3VHmz5p/MTWgyo3nVnqSo 3sNRnqYwFuu66i/LLQIe8UKXQc+QFVzmd2F6zMj/G7DoWgs4CZ7L3J8dcLvB4zeL 9Z0MVm/pJEEGwqKlTlJBwVDd8Lh15c5KQCp8m9PavwkztOzMBSD1znyXZALAYzFu IxgNJnkT5//i6I1MRWbdsmig0xP2Sz5GwrO4ANlkZMagGWFBMiDHBxAOQS71SAkQ g==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=llClo+CPEMkuMD+uM7BFdVobrh/RMyJIfvQ1wqtBn fQ=; b=PqxtLGP8o3Ap7dlfOfANYfVQa7lVVuKnK9BacLoGSER4Kb5mOfIbY/VFY +pRPnt077f/YW/7WdZjyfGBmj0427/OqrQ4afVgFfT/N0n7Gwxts4y6LmhW5Htq/ 0NJPprMWYfrr04D4LcxkM5RwKKu7VhMxcfELE4KmhfTorN0M8rSTtRwxKC2FSc2k TQHy/Gd4DDO5qE5ZJJX5ucUKYg+CcO1h7SakAxp9yFabibt+68nrfKymaMcCXMWu H/eo0gERjED9CGoxy0HMmmkLESWYsQc2IZfA+Dq1ys7nReotLpu9jwk3gCrzWu1z heb5y98Unwqn3Rt4gHbNjWAFmZXsQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:MpYEX61HGakJlAg8CUMYFXrPZTrDTjLXw-1XOEaZq4DwQIctB_H_O9G-RIQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrudehgdekhecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgfgsehtqh ertderreejnecuhfhrohhmpedfrfgrthhrihgtkhcuofgvvhiivghkfdcuoehpmhesugho thgrnhgutghordgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehheduleehtddvudefhfdtie ffgfeffeffgeelieeutedttddtgfdtgfdujeekjeenucffohhmrghinhepihgtrghnnhdr ohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe hpmhesughothgrnhgutghordgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:MpYEX9EOmxdXl6BcoOqHkdlM-2fBwIxs7NoHVHXEgMyIHdW3OiAOAA> <xmx:MpYEXy5tYTpHJO7tP_RY9YJ7zrDHbOsgUX-yvlbFHu0vZBZB1Ykbcw> <xmx:MpYEX7083jJIrDIWsabUS48pOkIrNNNzjOvvquFzFpWcJuNTKLw68A> <xmx:M5YEX1HW9C8yCPC2XRm9B5mReL6bNYgkQzYGP01-myNLiTXk1NlOiQ>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id B8C3A6680078; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 11:35:14 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-dev0-576-gfe2cd66-fm-20200629.001-gfe2cd668
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a733e206-3581-4f79-b1e1-cc3f5e43de2b@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200707130726.GA26578@nic.fr>
References: <20200707130726.GA26578@nic.fr>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 10:34:13 -0500
From: Patrick Mevzek <pm@dotandco.com>
To: regext@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/g9X1zu9SFPqhhne2tfBd1d-bHD8>
Subject: Re: [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 15:35:24 -0000


On Tue, Jul 7, 2020, at 08:07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> I've found a RDAP client which crashes, apparently when there is no
> rdapConformance in the answer.

Poor client. I predict a very difficult time for it, as it will find many many different types of broken RDAP servers with much more difficult cases than this.
 
> RFC 7483 seems very liberal. It does not say that rdapConformance is
> mandatory.

It says:
The string literal "rdap_level_0" signifies conformance with this
   specification.

Which for me implies that this string must be seen if one claims to be an RDAP server/client, and in turn this string happens to be defined inside the rdapConformance.

So, if no rdapConformance, no rdap_level_0, and hence no real RDAP but something else.

Also, RFC 7483 is not the only thing out there to watch for, specifically because it seems more is happening in gTLD than ccTLD world.
See §1.7 of https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rdap-technical-implementation-guide-15feb19-en.pdf

<quote>
1.7. An ​rdapConformance​ object [​RFC7483​] MUST be present in the topmost object of every response, and it MUST contain the conformance level of the RDAP protocol and of any extensions, as specified in​​ RFC7483​.
</quote>

-- 
  Patrick Mevzek
  pm@dotandco.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email