Per RFC 7230, ยง5.4 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-5.4), the port is optional if it's the default for the URI (:80 for http, :443 for https), but nowhere in the spec does it say it's an error to include a redundant port specifier. The registry server is likely noncompliant here, and it definitely should not be throwing 418 here. (400 would be appropriate if the Host header was malformed - but that's not even the case here).