idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 15 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 23, 2021) is 1102 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7482 (Obsoleted by RFC 9082) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7483 (Obsoleted by RFC 9083) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Registration Protocols Extensions M. Loffredo 3 Internet-Draft IIT-CNR/Registro.it 4 Intended status: Standards Track G. Brown 5 Expires: September 24, 2021 CentralNic Group plc 6 March 23, 2021 8 Using JSContact in Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) JSON 9 Responses 10 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-00 12 Abstract 14 This document describes an RDAP extension which represents entity 15 contact information in JSON responses using JSContact. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 24, 2021. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 1.1. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 1.2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 2. JSContact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 3. Using JSCard objects in RDAP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 3.1. RDAP Query Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 57 4. Transition Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 58 4.1. RDAP Features Supporting a Transition Process . . . . . . 7 59 4.1.1. Notices and Link Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . 7 60 4.1.2. rdapConformance Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 4.1.3. Query Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 4.2. Transition Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 4.2.1. Transition Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 64 4.2.1.1. Stage 1: only jCard provided . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 4.2.1.2. Stage 2: jCard sunset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 4.2.1.3. Stage 3: jCard deprecation . . . . . . . . . . . 9 67 4.2.1.4. Stage 4: jCard deprecated . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 68 4.2.1.5. Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 4.2.1.6. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 71 5.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 72 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 73 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 74 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 75 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 77 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 78 A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 79 A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 80 A.3. Change from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 81 A.4. Change from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 82 A.5. Initial WG version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 83 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 85 1. Introduction 87 This document specifies an extension to the Registration Data Access 88 Protocol (RDAP) that allows RDAP servers to use JSContact 89 ([draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact]) to represent the contact information 90 associated with entities in RDAP responses, instead of jCard 91 ([RFC7095]). It also describes the process by which an RDAP server 92 can transition from jCard to JSContact. RDAP query and response 93 extensions are defined to facilitate the transition process. 95 1.1. Rationale 97 According to the feedback from RDAP Pilot Working Group 98 ([RDAP-PILOT-WG], a group of RDAP server implementers representing 99 registries and registrars of generic TLDs), the most commonly raised 100 implementation concern, for both servers and client implementers, 101 related to the use of jCard ([RFC7095]) to represent the contact 102 information associated with entities. Working Group members reported 103 jCard to be unintuitive, complicated to implement for both clients 104 and servers, and incompatible with best practices for RESTful APIs. 106 JSContact ([draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact]) provides a simpler and more 107 efficient representation for contact information. In addition, 108 similarly to jCard, it provides a means to represent 109 internationalised and unstructured contact information. Support for 110 internationalised contact information has been recognised being 111 necessary to facilitate the future internationalisation of 112 registration data directory services. 114 1.2. Conventions Used in This Document 116 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 117 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 118 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 119 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 120 capitals, as shown here. 122 2. JSContact 124 The JSContact specification defines a data model and JSON 125 representation of contact information that can be used for data 126 storage and exchange in address book or directory applications. It 127 aims to be an alternative to the vCard data format ([RFC6350]) and to 128 be unambiguous, extendable and simple to process. In contrast with 129 jCard, it is not a direct mapping from the vCard data model and 130 expands semantics where appropriate. 132 The JSContact specification declares two main object types: "JSCard", 133 which represents a single contact "card", and "JSCardGroup" which 134 represents a collection of JSCard objects. For the purpose of this 135 document, only JSCard objects are considered. 137 JSCard differs from jCard in that it: 139 o follows an object-oriented rather than array-oriented approach; 141 o is simple to process; 142 o requires no extra work in serialization/deserialization from/to a 143 data model; 145 o includes no "jagged" arrays; 147 o prefers maps rather than arrays to implement collections; 149 o is able to represent redacted contacts (both "name" and"fullName" 150 properties are optional). 152 [draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact-vcard] provides informational guidance on 153 the conversion of jCard objects into JSCard objects, and vice versa. 155 3. Using JSCard objects in RDAP Responses 157 Entity objects in RDAP responses MAY include a "jscard" property 158 whose value is a JSCard object instead of the "vCardArray" property 159 defined in [RFC7483]. 161 Servers returning the "jscard" property in their response MUST 162 include "jscard" in the "rdapConformance" array. 164 An example of an RDAP response containing a "jscard" property is 165 shown in Figure 1. The "jscard" object in this example has been 166 converted from the example included in section 5.1 of [RFC7483]. 168 { 169 "rdapConformance": [ 170 "rdap_level_0", 171 "jscard" 172 ], 173 "objectClassName" : "entity", 174 "handle":"XXXX", 175 "jscard":{ 176 "uid": "XXXX", 177 "fullName": { "value": "Joe User" }, 178 "kind": "individual", 179 "preferredContactLanguages": { 180 "fr": { "preference": 1 }, 181 "en": { "preference": 2 } 182 }, 183 "organization": [ { "value": "Example" } ], 184 "jobTitle": [ { "value": "Research Scientist" } ], 185 "role": [ { "value": "Project Lead" } ], 186 "addresses": [ 187 { 188 "context": "work", 189 "extension": "Suite 1234", 190 "street": "4321 Rue Somewhere", 191 "locality": "Quebec", 192 "region": "QC", 193 "postcode": "G1V 2M2", 194 "country": "Canada", 195 "coordinates": "geo:46.772673,-71.282945", 196 "timeZone": "Canada/Eastern" 197 }, 198 { 199 "context": "private", 200 "fullAddress": { 201 "value": "123 Maple Ave\nSuite 90001\nVancouver\nBC\n1239\n" 202 } 203 } 204 ], 205 "phones": [ 206 { 207 "context": "work", 208 "type": "voice", 209 "labels": { 210 "cell": true, 211 "video": true, 212 "text": true 213 }, 214 "isPreferred": true, 215 "value": "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102" 216 } 217 ], 218 "emails": [ 219 { 220 "context": "work", 221 "value": "joe.user@example.com" 222 } 223 ], 224 "online": [ 225 { 226 "context": "work", 227 "type": "uri", 228 "labels": { "key": true }, 229 "value": "http://www.example.com/joe.user/joe.asc" 230 }, 231 { 232 "context": "private", 233 "type": "uri", 234 "labels": { "url": true }, 235 "value": "http://example.org" 236 } 237 ] 239 } 240 "roles":[ "registrar" ], 241 "publicIds":[ 242 { 243 "type":"IANA Registrar ID", 244 "identifier":"1" 245 } 246 ], 247 "remarks":[ 248 { 249 "description":[ 250 "She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.", 251 "Originally written by Terry Sullivan." 252 ] 253 } 254 ], 255 "links":[ 256 { 257 "value":"http://example.com/entity/XXXX", 258 "rel":"self", 259 "href":"http://example.com/entity/XXXX", 260 "type" : "application/rdap+json" 261 } 262 ], 263 "events":[ 264 { 265 "eventAction":"registration", 266 "eventDate":"1990-12-31T23:59:59Z" 267 } 268 ], 269 "asEventActor":[ 270 { 271 "eventAction":"last changed", 272 "eventDate":"1991-12-31T23:59:59Z" 273 } 274 ] 275 } 277 Figure 1: Example of "jscard" in RDAP response 279 3.1. RDAP Query Parameters 281 Two new query parameters are defined for the purpose of this 282 document. 284 The query parameters are OPTIONAL extensions of path segments defined 285 in [RFC7482]. They are as follows: 287 o "jscard": a boolean value that allows a client to request the 288 "jscard" property in the RDAP response; 290 o "jcard": a boolean value that allows a client to request the 291 "vcardArray" property in the RDAP response. 293 These parameters are furtherly explained in Section 4. 295 4. Transition Considerations 297 4.1. RDAP Features Supporting a Transition Process 299 4.1.1. Notices and Link Relationships 301 RDAP allows servers to communicate service information to clients 302 through notices. An RDAP response may contain one or more notice 303 objects ([RFC7483], Section 4.3), each of which may include a set of 304 link objects, which can be used to provide clients with references 305 and documentation. These link objects may have a "rel" property 306 which defines the relationship type, as described in [RFC8288], 307 Section 4. The transition process outlined in this document uses two 308 types of link relation: 310 o "deprecation", as described in 311 [draft-ietf-httpapi-deprecation-header]; 313 o "alternate", as described in [RFC8288]. 315 4.1.2. rdapConformance Property 317 The information about the specifications used in the construction of 318 the response is also described by the strings which appear in the 319 "rdapConformance" property of the RDAP response. 321 4.1.3. Query Parameters 323 Clients are able to ask servers to use specific RDAP features by 324 using appropriate query parameters as described in [RFC7482]. 326 4.2. Transition Procedure 328 The procedure for jCard to JSCard transition consists of four 329 contiguous stages. During the procedure, the presence of "jscard" 330 tag in the rdapConformance array indicates that JSCard is returned 331 instead of jCard. The time format used to notify clients about this 332 procedure is defined in [RFC3339]. 334 Some elements of the following procedure are based on the best 335 practices in [API-DEPRECATION]. 337 4.2.1. Transition Stages 339 4.2.1.1. Stage 1: only jCard provided 341 This stage corresponds to providing jCard as default contact card 342 ([RFC7483]). The RDAP server is not able to provide an alternate 343 contact card. The rdapConformance array MUST NOT contain the 344 "jscard" tag. 346 4.2.1.2. Stage 2: jCard sunset 348 During this stage, the server uses jCard by default, but the RDAP 349 server will return JSCard if the client sets the query parameter 350 "jscard" to a true value. The rdapConformance array MUST contain the 351 "jscard" tag if JSCard is requested. 353 The RDAP server SHOULD include a notice titled "jCard sunset end". 354 Such a notice should include a description reporting the jCard sunset 355 end time and two links: 357 o "deprecation": a link to a URI-identified resource documenting the 358 jCard deprecation; 360 o "alternate": if JSCard is not requested, a link to the JSCard 361 version of same resource as identified by the current query string 362 plus the parameter "jscard" set to a true value (Figure 2); 363 otherwise, only the "deprecation" link is provided (Figure 3). 365 "notices": [ 366 { 367 "title": "jCard sunset end", 368 "description": ["2020-07-01T00:00:00Z"], 369 "links": [{ 370 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 371 "rel": "deprecation", 372 "type": "text/html", 373 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 374 }, 375 { 376 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 377 "rel": "alternate", 378 "type": "application/rdap+json", 379 "href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jscard=1" 380 } 381 ] 382 } 383 ] 385 Figure 2: jCard sunset - JSCard not requested 387 "notices": [ 388 { 389 "title": "jCard sunset end", 390 "description": ["2020-07-01T00:00:00Z"], 391 "links": [ 392 { 393 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jscard=1", 394 "rel": "deprecation", 395 "type": "text/html", 396 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 397 } 398 ] 399 } 400 ] 402 Figure 3: jCard sunset - JSCard requested 404 4.2.1.3. Stage 3: jCard deprecation 406 This stage corresponds to the provisioning of JSCard by default, but 407 the RDAP will return jCard if the client sets the query parameter 408 "jcard" to a true value. The rdapConformance array contains the 409 "jscard" tag unless jCard is requested. The "jscard" query parameter 410 is ignored. 412 The RDAP server SHOULD to return a notice titled "jCard deprecation 413 end". Such a notice should include a description reporting the jCard 414 deprecation end time and two links: 416 o "deprecation": a link to a URI-identified resource documenting the 417 jCard deprecation; 419 o "alternate": if jCard is not requested, a link to the jCard 420 version of the same resource as identified by the current query 421 string plus the parameter "jcard" set to 1/true/yes (Figure 4); 422 otherwise, a link to the JSCard version of the same resource as 423 identified by the current query string without the parameter 424 "jcard" (Figure 5). 426 "notices": [ 427 { 428 "title": "jCard deprecation end", 429 "description": ["2020-12-31T23:59:59Z"], 430 "links": [ 431 { 432 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 433 "rel": "deprecation", 434 "type": "text/html", 435 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 436 }, 437 { 438 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 439 "rel": "alternate", 440 "type": "application/rdap+json", 441 "href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1" 442 } 443 ] 444 } 445 ] 447 Figure 4: jCard deprecation - jCard not requested 449 "notices": [ 450 { 451 "title": "jCard deprecation end", 452 "description": ["2020-12-31T23:59:59Z"], 453 "links": [ 454 { 455 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1", 456 "rel": "deprecation", 457 "type": "text/html", 458 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 459 }, 460 { 461 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1", 462 "rel": "alternate", 463 "type": "application/rdap+json", 464 "href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX" 465 } 466 ] 467 } 468 ] 470 Figure 5: jCard deprecation - jCard requested 472 4.2.1.4. Stage 4: jCard deprecated 474 This stage corresponds to providing JSCard as default contact card. 475 The RDAP server is not able to provide an alternate contact card. 476 The rdapConformance array always contains "jscard" tag. The RDAP 477 server doesn't include any notice about the jCard deprecation 478 process. Both "jscard" and "jcard" query parameters are ignored. 480 4.2.1.5. Length 482 The length of both jCard sunset and jCard deprecation periods are not 483 fixed by this specification. Best practices in REST API deprecation 484 suggest that, depending on the deprecated API's reach, user base and 485 service offering, a convenient time could be anywhere between 3 - 8 486 months. Anyway, RDAP providers are recommended to monitor the server 487 log to figure out whether declared times need to be changed to meet 488 client requirements. 490 4.2.1.6. Goals 492 The procedure described in this document achieves the following 493 goals: 495 o only one contact representation would be included in the response; 496 o the response would always be compliant to [RFC7483]; 498 o clients would be informed about the transition timeline; 500 o the backward compatibility would be guaranteed throughout the 501 transition; 503 o servers and clients could execute their transitions independently. 505 5. Implementation Status 507 NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior 508 to publication as an RFC. 510 This section records the status of known implementations of the 511 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 512 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 513 [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is 514 intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing 515 drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual 516 implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. 517 Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information 518 presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not 519 intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available 520 implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that 521 other implementations may exist. 523 According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups 524 to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of 525 running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation 526 and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. 527 It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as 528 they see fit". 530 5.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it 532 Responsible Organization: Institute of Informatics and Telematics 533 of National Research Council (IIT-CNR)/Registro.it 535 Location: https://rdap.pubtest.nic.it/ 537 Description: This implementation includes support for RDAP queries 538 using data from the public test environment of .it ccTLD. 540 Level of Maturity: This is a "proof of concept" research 541 implementation. 543 Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features 544 described in this specification. 546 Contact Information: Mario Loffredo, mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it 548 6. IANA Considerations 550 IANA is requested to register the following values in the RDAP 551 Extensions Registry: 553 Extension identifier: jscard 555 Registry operator: Any 557 Published specification: This document. 559 Contact: IETF 561 Intended usage: This extension represents a contact card provided 562 in an RDAP response according to the JSContact specification 563 ([draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact]). 565 7. Security Considerations 567 Unlike jCard, the formatted name as well as any other personally 568 identifiable information is not required in JSCard. The only 569 mandatory property, namely "uid", is usually an opaque string. 570 Therefore, redacted properties can be merely excluded without using 571 placeholder values. 573 8. References 575 8.1. Normative References 577 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 578 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 579 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 580 . 582 [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: 583 Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, 584 . 586 [RFC6350] Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350, 587 DOI 10.17487/RFC6350, August 2011, 588 . 590 [RFC7095] Kewisch, P., "jCard: The JSON Format for vCard", RFC 7095, 591 DOI 10.17487/RFC7095, January 2014, 592 . 594 [RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access 595 Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, 596 DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015, 597 . 599 [RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the 600 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483, 601 DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015, 602 . 604 [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running 605 Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, 606 RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, 607 . 609 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 610 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 611 May 2017, . 613 [RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288, 614 DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017, 615 . 617 8.2. Informative References 619 [API-DEPRECATION] 620 Sandoval, K., "How to Smartly Sunset and Deprecate APIs", 621 August 2019, . 625 [draft-ietf-httpapi-deprecation-header] 626 Dalal, S. and E. Wilde, "The Deprecation HTTP Header 627 Field", . 630 [draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact] 631 Stepanek, R. and M. Loffredo, "JSContact: A JSON 632 representation of contact data", 633 . 636 [draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact-vcard] 637 Loffredo, M. and R. Stepanek, "JSContact: Converting from 638 and to vCard", . 641 [RDAP-PILOT-WG] 642 ICANN RDAP Pilot WG, "RDAP Pilot Report", April 2019, 643 . 646 Appendix A. Change Log 648 A.1. Change from 00 to 01 650 1. Changed category from "Best Current Practice" to "Standards 651 Track" 653 2. Replaced the example of Figure 1 655 3. Changed the title of the "Migration from JCard to JSCard" 656 section to "Transition Considerations" 658 4. Added Section 3.1 660 5. Updated Section 6 662 6. Updated Section 7 664 7. Rearranged the description of stage 1 in Section 4.2.1 666 8. Changed the names of the transition stages 1 and 2 668 9. Corrected Figure 2, Figure 4, Figure 5 670 10. Changed the rdapConformance tag "jscard_level_0" to "jscard" 672 11. Removed the "Best Practices for deprecating a REST API features" 673 section, but added a useful reference. 675 A.2. Change from 01 to 02 677 1. Removed the sentence "which cannot be represented using jCard" in 678 Section 1.1. 680 A.3. Change from 02 to 03 682 1. Updated section "Conventions Used in This Document". 684 2. Updated the contact in "IANA Considerations" section. 686 3. Changed the reference draft-loffredo-jmap-jscontact-vcard to 687 draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact-vcard. 689 4. Added reference to RFC8174. 691 5. Other minor edits. 693 A.4. Change from 03 to 04 695 1. Updated the reference draft-dalal-deprecation-header to draft- 696 ietf-httpapi-deprecation-header. 698 A.5. Initial WG version 700 1. Ported from draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-jcard-deprecation-04 701 renamed to draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-00. 703 Authors' Addresses 705 Mario Loffredo 706 IIT-CNR/Registro.it 707 Via Moruzzi,1 708 Pisa 56124 709 IT 711 Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it 712 URI: http://www.iit.cnr.it 714 Gavin Brown 715 CentralNic Group plc 716 Saddlers House, 44 Gutter Lane 717 London, England EC2V 6BR 718 GB 720 Phone: +44 20 33 88 0600 721 Email: gavin.brown@centralnic.com 722 URI: https://www.centralnic.com