Message-ID: <5aab2252-4185-4e2f-8bc1-d5d441a145bb@hxr.us>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 14:53:41 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Kaveh Ranjbar <kaveh@whisper.security>, regext@ietf.org
References: 
 <CA+kObRJebnqRk3QWwksw2tcQbXo=BkmoLc6jreVqKkS_1SaAMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kObRLt98t9LeNC_O_ZkpEtzqpkcbd+8HhGdvFu4cVhJYu=bA@mail.gmail.com>
 <alg23MZB76uc-l74@TomH-498551.lan>
 <CA+kObRKkZL7TJgBYNyxSVENC8tqX2uqy890Cr3yVZ4YzhJzRLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAQiQRf8cOtErEa9w2Xo7uMj=tkuzru58uCY0EAHsQKdpRPTSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kObRJRZ=vUgjk88=OKTMuw-Ht23ebHfkwj-wQ2A9UKas8duw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAQiQRdBBe5bxJ3nqkWyddYH_GPZnP7fZxiE5hCwP8CnbgJGUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kObRKE9YV5TvA-tOtFNHoZYNO3jnQDfY-qNgH-nRmeY7sRWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <cdf35666-6da7-4f37-ac76-e66f59001bfc@hxr.us>
 <5066b888-956e-49b6-b0bf-85f2fc337d95@hxr.us>
 <CA+kObRJMNSY=E4MS12TdyDm0_O0+mj1i68BWBSb5nZqha4GYtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kObRKDxmC7n1CaKp9CZV55CPtsgH+bTT9y71gxb5vAAih1Sw@mail.gmail.com>
 <PH7PR15MB60845EEB3C521A54EE33A071C98D2@PH7PR15MB6084.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
 <CA+kObR+rZ7Oy5336wPs7zXuOJ8z4gBwd9uhViwq5BMVRdhYUOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kObRJVUaGuA_WDhzv2+oqP7frfcTFKQCq0Qv=X-0t4azoYdg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Andy Newton <andy@hxr.us>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+kObRJVUaGuA_WDhzv2+oqP7frfcTFKQCq0Qv=X-0t4azoYdg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID-Hash: UA7YBGBYKKBPQU5KPJQLFED4P6QJVVIU
CC: gavin.brown@fastmail.uk, jasdips@arin.net, tomh@apnic.net
Precedence: list
Subject: [regext] Re: Referrals to holder-designated RDAP servers for subordinate
 resources (draft-ranjbar-regext-rdap-subordinate-referrals-00)
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/regext/o7FavNsHH4XFiM8pRekCplglLeY>


On 10/15/26 2:40 PM, Kaveh Ranjbar wrote:
> 
> Two things I would value the group's view on. Andy, my question from
> September still stands: can extensions still take the base relations
> or should we wait for it to turn over? 

Are you asking if an extension can use the rdap-base-* relations, if that is an I-D you should normatively reference the extension draft.

> And one that came out of
> review: rdap-extensions defines a redirect loop as any redirect back
> to a server already visited during the same query, which rules out a
> holder sending a lookup for an address it holds nothing for back to
> the registry's covering object, even though that is a different
> resource. -02 works around it by having the holder answer with its own> record for the covering block. If the intent was to forbid revisiting
> the same URL rather than the same server, it may be worth saying so in
> extensions.

Ok. Yeah.... we need to tighten up that language to say the loops are about resources specifically. So if you redirect to a different resource that should be ok. Good catch.

-andy