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

["Patrick Mevzek" <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.

-- 
  Patrick Mevzek
  [e-mail]