> -----Original Message----- > From: Mario Loffredo <mario.loffr...@iit.cnr.it> > Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 10:04 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com>; a...@hxr.us > 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. > > Il 05/04/2023 14:40, Hollenbeck, Scott ha scritto: > >> -----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. > > [ML] It's unclear to me what "functionality" (as well as "unsupported query > type") means. > > Excluding the HTTP methods and the endpoints, what remains is a > functionality > requested by clients through either a query parameter or an header but > unsupported/unknown parameters/headers are simply ignored. > > Is there something else ?
[SAH] A path segment? Imagine sending something like this to a domain name registry: https://example.com/rdap/autnum/12 It's RDAP-valid, but a domain name registry probably doesn't support autonomous system number lookup functionality. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
