> On Dec 7, 2016, at 5:48 AM, Mario Loffredo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have a question about how to deal with RDAP lookup queries for reserved or > unassignable domains. > > If a client submits a query about a reserved or unassignable domain, which > response code should the server return? > > In my opinion, if the server returns a 404 response, it could be > misunderstood. The client could undestand the domain is available. > > In the GET method, the server may include additional information regarding > the negative answer, but it can't in the HEAD method. > > Maybe the 410 response code could be used in this case ?
I think you are suggesting to keep a confusion that currently exists in the domain distribution chain between availability checking and registration data directory services (called WHOIS in the previous millennium). *The* tool for availability checking is domain:check transactions in EPP protocol; but this suffers from some issues: - TLS session setup adds latency to transaction - Resellers can't connect to EPP I think a lightweight availability checking protocol, possibly using DTLS and incorporating a predefined set of EPP extensions (like draft-brown-epp-fees) so it doesn't have to negotiate capabilities, would be a better approach than keeping this mix-up between use cases enshrined in stone. There are already in use similar implementations, see ftp://ftp.registro.br/pub/isavail/isavail-0.5.tar.gz <ftp://ftp.registro.br/pub/isavail/isavail-0.5.tar.gz> . Rubens
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
