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 p...@dotandco.com _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
