> -----Original Message----- > From: regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Stephane Bortzmeyer > Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 10:03 AM > To: regext@ietf.org > Cc: bortzme...@nic.fr > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] About conformance to RFC 8521 > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > > While RFC 8521 says "RDAP responses that contain values described in this > document MUST indicate conformance with this specification by including an > rdapConformance [RFC7483] value of "rdap_objectTag_level_0", it is funny to > note that apparently not one of the registries under <https://secure- > web.cisco.com/1Rs133rKttQq6WgzrVwxIv1r788Y47kITSLk7826G0LPKdcIDRpU9T > sPzjgNdBP4aUcHetSPXqAgjv6GrqyXS1Rn2VjYvNasfNd28MTdPKk7Ou9wP22YoJh > ZmE0Fq3gGK5uNO4gabaT0DIU2TKaHm- > muMn7SJdaNkt_zLClVK3s0VE7CHRYhNLq1FDkApYONAb1TmvKeyoKP1Kz1KCw0j > aVqzZuYbhdsnsVVeQz4- > TnlS3H4PUQpYJHwDtSd25yLUe0xQQY_gpwvqgZcCbRebkIxbgxZFhyKcJyGMbgRU > HKU/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Frdap-object- > tags%2Frdap-object-tags.xml> > does it :-)
[SAH] This is almost certainly an artifact of the confusion surrounding extension identification that has plagued RDAP implementation since the very beginning. I think (hope?) we got past that with our discussion from IETF-114. Maybe not. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
