Subject: Re: [weirds] Search Engines Indexing RDAP Server Content
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
To: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 13:35:13 +0000
List-Id: "WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service \(WEIRDS\)" <weirds.ietf.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Galvin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 8:01 AM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [weirds] Search Engines Indexing RDAP Server Content
> 
> This is not a very good example of the need for operational practices.
> 
> It represents Google UK’s view of what you can find when you start at
> “http://rdg.afilias.info/rdap/help”, which includes explicit
> examples of how to use the RDAP server.

Jim, you're probably right about it not being a good example. I'm more concerned with the information that could be returned in response to an entity query being archived.

Side note: the response received for http://rdg.afilias.info/rdap/help is encoded using HTML. Sections 7 and 4.3 of RFC 7483 say it should be JSON-encoded.

"The appropriate response to /help queries as defined by [RFC7482] is to use the notices structure as defined in Section 4.3."

Would it have been indexed at all if it wasn't HTML? There's an operational practice thing in here somewhere... ;)

Scott