Andy, I don't believe that RDAP was designed just for redirection services, and I simply don't understand why the redirection services can't preserve the query parameters. Section 5.2 of RFC 7480 makes no mention of query parameters and states that the server "is to hand back a complete URL", which in my opinion should include the query parameters originally passed by the client. Section 4.3 of RFC 7480 states that servers MUST ignore unknown query parameters, which I believe is associated with the target server and not the redirection server. The redirection server should not interpret ignore as the ability to filter, since it's not the target server.
RDAP is a REST protocol and should be capable of support all the HTTP semantics as stated by Marc. It may be useful to define a draft associated with an RDAP redirection service that highlights what may or may not work. There is no requirement for all RDAP extensions to work with a redirection service if that service decides not to support it. My requirement for a redirection service is that the original URL sent by the client should be preserved with the query parameters except for the base URL. The target server can ignore unknown query parameters. -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer jgo...@verisign.com <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgo...@verisign.com> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 11/14/23, 5:25 PM, "Andrew Newton" <a...@hxr.us <mailto:a...@hxr.us>> wrote: 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. On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 3:00 PM Marc Blanchet <marc.blanc...@viagenie.ca <mailto:marc.blanc...@viagenie.ca>> wrote: > > The fact that some people are willing to provide services in addition to the > standard track RFCs for bootstrapping RFC9224) does not mean that it should > influence how we design our protocols. I have a hard time thinking that we > are limiting our design space by not supporting all HTTP semantics, such as > query parameters. Hence, I disagree with this argument. > > Marc. Marc, Please read sections 5.2 and 4.3 of RFC 7480. Those semantics are used in redirects in the ecosystem, and redirects are quite heavily used in the RIRs as the RDAP bootstrap cannot account for inter-RIR transfers. Also, we should very much be influenced by the services deployed based on concepts in our own RFCs, especially since they are compliant with our own RFCs. But I do agree with "I have a hard time thinking that we are limiting our design space by not supporting all HTTP semantics". That's why the RDAP-X media type has been proposed. Have you read the draft? Because it solves the problem using HTTP semantics. -andy _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
