On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 09:06:03AM -0500, Andrew Newton wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 12:56:57PM +0000, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 04:02:35PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >>> 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://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-object-tags/rdap-object-tags.xml> >>> does it :-) >> >> 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. > > On the contrary, I think Stephane has a different point here. This > is important signaling to the client that handles have object tags > in conformance to the syntax of the RFC, and most of the servers are > not abiding by it. While this is mostly an RIR thing, there was a > general question to the DEs not too long ago about domain registrars > registering object tags.
At least on APNIC's part, we registered the 'APNIC' tag in order to prevent it being registered by somebody else. We don't make use of the tag in our identifiers, which is why we don't include the "rdap_objectTag_level_0" rdapConformance value in our responses. -Tom _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
