> -----Original Message----- > From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it> > Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 4:24 AM > To: Andrew Newton <a...@hxr.us>; Hollenbeck, Scott > <shollenb...@verisign.com> > Cc: jasd...@arin.net; regext@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-rdap-reverse-search- > 20 > > 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. > > Hi Scott and Andy, > > Il 04/04/2023 18:33, Andrew Newton ha scritto: > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:20 AM Hollenbeck, Scott > > <shollenb...@verisign.com> wrote: > >> [SAH] Nit: as alluded to by Jasdip above, RFC 7231 has been obsoleted by > RFC 9110. > >> > >> > >> > >> The 501 text is 9110 is consistent with 7231, but I don’t think it’s > >> limited to > an invalid method. If the operative text is “the server does not support the > functionality required to fulfill the request”, the response can be returned > for > *any* condition in which the server does not support the functionality > required > to fulfill the request. It doesn’t say that “the server does not support the > requested method”. I still believe that 501 would be the best response. > >> > > After rereading the text, I agree with Scott. > > [ML] Just to understand better, daes it mean that an RDAP server should > support additional lookups and searches to those really implemented with the > only purpose of returning an error ?
[SAH] No. The point I'm trying to make is that if a client sends a valid request to an RDAP server, and that request can't be processed because the requested functionality isn't supported, then a 501 response is appropriate. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
