Hi Mario,
On Mon 21/Feb/2022 08:30:53 +0100 Mario Loffredo wrote:
Il 20/02/2022 13:17, Alessandro Vesely ha scritto:
On Wed 16/Feb/2022 15:54:01 +0100 Mario Loffredo wrote:
For what is worth, I would proceed as in the following:
1) If a contact with the abuse role exists:
1.a) If at least one pref parameter exists, I would return only the most
preferred email address;
1.b) If the pref parameter is missing, I would return all the email
addresses in order of appearance.
2) If a contact with the abuse role is missing, I would return no abuse
email address
Hope It could be helpful.
Yup, that's an applicable hint. I'd suggest to publish it as a default
profile in the next RFC. (I don't know how to get profiles, let alone
parsing them. Having a default profile allows to make sense of APNIC's
preferences.)
Don't think this is a matter of an RFC.
Why not?
What I suggested, it can be valid as a general rule applicable to every RDAP
response provided that the server returns a contact with the abuse role.
So the missing paragraph about "pref" could be filed as an erratum to RFC7483?
For example, it can be applied to APNIC's abuse contacts as well as to the
abuse contacts returned by the gTLDs' RDAP servers according to what is stated
in Section 2.4.5 of
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rdap-response-profile-15feb19-en.pdf
Apart from that document not mentioning preferences, IMHO it is important that
"pref" has a standard meaning. If users need to gather it from specific
profiles, the very concept of a "grand unified specification"[*] would get cracked.
Best
Ale
--
[*] Mentioned in WEIRD's charter
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/weirds/about/
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
