idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-01.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 2 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 (April 15, 2021) is 1106 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: October 17, 2021 CentralNic Group plc 6 April 15, 2021 8 Using JSContact in Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) JSON 9 Responses 10 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-01 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 October 17, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 57 4. Transition Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 58 4.1. RDAP Features Supporting a Transition Process . . . . . . 7 59 4.1.1. Notices and Link Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . 8 60 4.1.2. rdapConformance Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 61 4.1.3. Query Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 62 4.2. Transition Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 66 4.2.1.3. Stage 3: jCard deprecation . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 4.2.1.4. Stage 4: jCard deprecated . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 68 4.2.1.5. Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 69 4.2.1.6. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 70 5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 71 5.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 72 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 73 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 74 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 75 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 76 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 77 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 78 A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 79 A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 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 A.6. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 84 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 86 1. Introduction 88 This document specifies an extension to the Registration Data Access 89 Protocol (RDAP) that allows RDAP servers to use JSContact 90 ([draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact]) to represent the contact information 91 associated with entities in RDAP responses, instead of jCard 92 ([RFC7095]). It also describes the process by which an RDAP server 93 can transition from jCard to JSContact. RDAP query and response 94 extensions are defined to facilitate the transition process. 96 1.1. Rationale 98 According to the feedback from RDAP Pilot Working Group 99 ([RDAP-PILOT-WG], a group of RDAP server implementers representing 100 registries and registrars of generic TLDs), the most commonly raised 101 implementation concern, for both servers and client implementers, 102 related to the use of jCard ([RFC7095]) to represent the contact 103 information associated with entities. Working Group members reported 104 jCard to be unintuitive, complicated to implement for both clients 105 and servers, and incompatible with best practices for RESTful APIs. 107 JSContact ([draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact]) provides a simpler and more 108 efficient representation for contact information. In addition, 109 similarly to jCard, it provides a means to represent 110 internationalised and unstructured contact information. Support for 111 internationalised contact information has been recognised being 112 necessary to facilitate the future internationalisation of 113 registration data directory services. 115 1.2. Conventions Used in This Document 117 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 118 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 119 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 120 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 121 capitals, as shown here. 123 2. JSContact 125 The JSContact specification defines a data model and JSON 126 representation of contact information that can be used for data 127 storage and exchange in address book or directory applications. It 128 aims to be an alternative to the vCard data format ([RFC6350]) and to 129 be unambiguous, extendable and simple to process. In contrast with 130 jCard, it is not a direct mapping from the vCard data model and 131 expands semantics where appropriate. 133 The JSContact specification declares two main object types: "JSCard", 134 which represents a single contact "card", and "JSCardGroup" which 135 represents a collection of JSCard objects. For the purpose of this 136 document, only JSCard objects are considered. 138 JSCard differs from jCard in that it: 140 o follows an object-oriented rather than array-oriented approach; 142 o is simple to process; 143 o requires no extra work in serialization/deserialization from/to a 144 data model; 146 o includes no "jagged" arrays; 148 o prefers maps rather than arrays to implement collections; 150 o is able to represent redacted contacts (both "name" and"fullName" 151 properties are optional). 153 [draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact-vcard] provides informational guidance on 154 the conversion of jCard objects into JSCard objects, and vice versa. 156 3. Using JSCard objects in RDAP Responses 158 Entity objects in RDAP responses MAY include a "jscard" property 159 whose value is a JSCard object instead of the "vCardArray" property 160 defined in [RFC7483]. 162 Servers returning the "jscard" property in their response MUST 163 include "jscard" in the "rdapConformance" array. 165 The JSCard "uid" property SHOULD contain the same value as the RDAP 166 "handle" property. 168 Since most of the JSCard collections are represented as maps, map 169 keys must be defined. To aid interoperability, RDAP providers are 170 RECOMMENDED to use as map keys the string values and labels defined 171 in [RFC5733] while mapping mostly used contact information in 172 registries' context: 174 o "org" for the internationalized organization in the 175 "organizations" map. The localized version can be represented 176 through the "localizations" member; 178 o "int" for the internationalized postal address in the "addresses" 179 map; 181 o "loc" for the localized postal address in the "addresses" map; 183 o "email" for the email address in the "emails" map; 185 o "voice" for the voice number in the "phones" map; 187 o "fax" for the fax number in the "phones" map. 189 Implementers MAY use different mapping schemes to define keys for 190 additional entries of the aforementioned maps or others. 192 An example of an RDAP response containing a "jscard" property is 193 shown in Figure 1. The "jscard" object in this example has been 194 converted from the example included in section 5.1 of [RFC7483]. 196 { 197 "rdapConformance": [ 198 "rdap_level_0", 199 "jscard" 200 ], 201 "objectClassName" : "entity", 202 "handle":"XXXX", 203 "jscard":{ 204 "uid": "XXXX", 205 "fullName": { "value": "Joe User" }, 206 "kind": "individual", 207 "preferredContactLanguages": { 208 "fr": { "pref": 1 }, 209 "en": { "pref": 2 } 210 }, 211 "organizations": { 212 "org": { 213 "name": { "value": "Example" } 214 } 215 }, 216 "titles": { 217 "title-1": { 218 "title": { "value": "Research Scientist" } 219 }, 220 "title-2": { 221 "title": { "value": "Project Lead" } 222 } 223 }, 224 "addresses": { 225 "int": { 226 "contexts": { "work": true }, 227 "extension": "Suite 1234", 228 "street": "4321 Rue Somewhere", 229 "locality": "Quebec", 230 "region": "QC", 231 "postcode": "G1V 2M2", 232 "country": "Canada", 233 "coordinates": "geo:46.772673,-71.282945", 234 "timeZone": "Canada/Eastern" 235 }, 236 "home": { 237 "contexts": { "private": true }, 238 "fullAddress": { 239 "value": "123 Maple Ave\nSuite 90001\nVancouver\nBC\n1239\n" 241 } 242 } 243 }, 244 "phones": { 245 "voice" : { 246 "contexts": { "work": true }, 247 "features": { "voice": true }, 248 "label": "cell,video,text", 249 "pref": 1, 250 "phone": "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102" 251 } 252 }, 253 "emails": { 254 "email": { 255 "contexts": { "work": true }, 256 "email": "joe.user@example.com" 257 } 258 }, 259 "online": { 260 "key": { 261 "contexts": { "work": true }, 262 "type": "uri", 263 "label": "key", 264 "resource": "http://www.example.com/joe.user/joe.asc" 265 }, 266 "url": { 267 "contexts": { "private": true }, 268 "type": "uri", 269 "label": "url", 270 "resource": "http://example.org" 271 } 272 } 273 }, 274 "roles":[ "registrar" ], 275 "publicIds":[ 276 { 277 "type":"IANA Registrar ID", 278 "identifier":"1" 279 } 280 ], 281 "remarks":[ 282 { 283 "description":[ 284 "She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.", 285 "Originally written by Terry Sullivan." 286 ] 287 } 288 ], 289 "links":[ 290 { 291 "value":"http://example.com/entity/XXXX", 292 "rel":"self", 293 "href":"http://example.com/entity/XXXX", 294 "type" : "application/rdap+json" 295 } 296 ], 297 "events":[ 298 { 299 "eventAction":"registration", 300 "eventDate":"1990-12-31T23:59:59Z" 301 } 302 ], 303 "asEventActor":[ 304 { 305 "eventAction":"last changed", 306 "eventDate":"1991-12-31T23:59:59Z" 307 } 308 ] 309 } 311 Figure 1: Example of "jscard" in RDAP response 313 3.1. RDAP Query Parameters 315 Two new query parameters are defined for the purpose of this 316 document. 318 The query parameters are OPTIONAL extensions of path segments defined 319 in [RFC7482]. They are as follows: 321 o "jscard": a boolean value that allows a client to request the 322 "jscard" property in the RDAP response; 324 o "jcard": a boolean value that allows a client to request the 325 "vcardArray" property in the RDAP response. 327 These parameters are furtherly explained in Section 4. 329 4. Transition Considerations 331 4.1. RDAP Features Supporting a Transition Process 332 4.1.1. Notices and Link Relationships 334 RDAP allows servers to communicate service information to clients 335 through notices. An RDAP response may contain one or more notice 336 objects ([RFC7483], Section 4.3), each of which may include a set of 337 link objects, which can be used to provide clients with references 338 and documentation. These link objects may have a "rel" property 339 which defines the relationship type, as described in [RFC8288], 340 Section 4. The transition process outlined in this document uses two 341 types of link relation: 343 o "deprecation", as described in 344 [draft-ietf-httpapi-deprecation-header]; 346 o "alternate", as described in [RFC8288]. 348 4.1.2. rdapConformance Property 350 The information about the specifications used in the construction of 351 the response is also described by the strings which appear in the 352 "rdapConformance" property of the RDAP response. 354 4.1.3. Query Parameters 356 Clients are able to ask servers to use specific RDAP features by 357 using appropriate query parameters as described in [RFC7482]. 359 4.2. Transition Procedure 361 The procedure for jCard to JSCard transition consists of four 362 contiguous stages. During the procedure, the presence of "jscard" 363 tag in the rdapConformance array indicates that JSCard is returned 364 instead of jCard. The time format used to notify clients about this 365 procedure is defined in [RFC3339]. 367 Some elements of the following procedure are based on the best 368 practices in [API-DEPRECATION]. 370 4.2.1. Transition Stages 372 4.2.1.1. Stage 1: only jCard provided 374 This stage corresponds to providing jCard as default contact card 375 ([RFC7483]). The RDAP server is not able to provide an alternate 376 contact card. The rdapConformance array MUST NOT contain the 377 "jscard" tag. 379 4.2.1.2. Stage 2: jCard sunset 381 During this stage, the server uses jCard by default, but the RDAP 382 server will return JSCard if the client sets the query parameter 383 "jscard" to a true value. The rdapConformance array MUST contain the 384 "jscard" tag if JSCard is requested. 386 The RDAP server SHOULD include a notice titled "jCard sunset end". 387 Such a notice should include a description reporting the jCard sunset 388 end time and two links: 390 o "deprecation": a link to a URI-identified resource documenting the 391 jCard deprecation; 393 o "alternate": if JSCard is not requested, a link to the JSCard 394 version of same resource as identified by the current query string 395 plus the parameter "jscard" set to a true value (Figure 2); 396 otherwise, only the "deprecation" link is provided (Figure 3). 398 "notices": [ 399 { 400 "title": "jCard sunset end", 401 "description": ["2020-07-01T00:00:00Z"], 402 "links": [{ 403 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 404 "rel": "deprecation", 405 "type": "text/html", 406 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 407 }, 408 { 409 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 410 "rel": "alternate", 411 "type": "application/rdap+json", 412 "href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jscard=1" 413 } 414 ] 415 } 416 ] 418 Figure 2: jCard sunset - JSCard not requested 420 "notices": [ 421 { 422 "title": "jCard sunset end", 423 "description": ["2020-07-01T00:00:00Z"], 424 "links": [ 425 { 426 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jscard=1", 427 "rel": "deprecation", 428 "type": "text/html", 429 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 430 } 431 ] 432 } 433 ] 435 Figure 3: jCard sunset - JSCard requested 437 4.2.1.3. Stage 3: jCard deprecation 439 This stage corresponds to the provisioning of JSCard by default, but 440 the RDAP will return jCard if the client sets the query parameter 441 "jcard" to a true value. The rdapConformance array contains the 442 "jscard" tag unless jCard is requested. The "jscard" query parameter 443 is ignored. 445 The RDAP server SHOULD to return a notice titled "jCard deprecation 446 end". Such a notice should include a description reporting the jCard 447 deprecation end time and two links: 449 o "deprecation": a link to a URI-identified resource documenting the 450 jCard deprecation; 452 o "alternate": if jCard is not requested, a link to the jCard 453 version of the same resource as identified by the current query 454 string plus the parameter "jcard" set to 1/true/yes (Figure 4); 455 otherwise, a link to the JSCard version of the same resource as 456 identified by the current query string without the parameter 457 "jcard" (Figure 5). 459 "notices": [ 460 { 461 "title": "jCard deprecation end", 462 "description": ["2020-12-31T23:59:59Z"], 463 "links": [ 464 { 465 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 466 "rel": "deprecation", 467 "type": "text/html", 468 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 469 }, 470 { 471 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 472 "rel": "alternate", 473 "type": "application/rdap+json", 474 "href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1" 475 } 476 ] 477 } 478 ] 480 Figure 4: jCard deprecation - jCard not requested 482 "notices": [ 483 { 484 "title": "jCard deprecation end", 485 "description": ["2020-12-31T23:59:59Z"], 486 "links": [ 487 { 488 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1", 489 "rel": "deprecation", 490 "type": "text/html", 491 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 492 }, 493 { 494 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1", 495 "rel": "alternate", 496 "type": "application/rdap+json", 497 "href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX" 498 } 499 ] 500 } 501 ] 503 Figure 5: jCard deprecation - jCard requested 505 4.2.1.4. Stage 4: jCard deprecated 507 This stage corresponds to providing JSCard as default contact card. 508 The RDAP server is not able to provide an alternate contact card. 509 The rdapConformance array always contains "jscard" tag. The RDAP 510 server doesn't include any notice about the jCard deprecation 511 process. Both "jscard" and "jcard" query parameters are ignored. 513 4.2.1.5. Length 515 The length of both jCard sunset and jCard deprecation periods are not 516 fixed by this specification. Best practices in REST API deprecation 517 suggest that, depending on the deprecated API's reach, user base and 518 service offering, a convenient time could be anywhere between 3 - 8 519 months. Anyway, RDAP providers are recommended to monitor the server 520 log to figure out whether declared times need to be changed to meet 521 client requirements. 523 4.2.1.6. Goals 525 The procedure described in this document achieves the following 526 goals: 528 o only one contact representation would be included in the response; 530 o the response would always be compliant to [RFC7483]; 532 o clients would be informed about the transition timeline; 534 o the backward compatibility would be guaranteed throughout the 535 transition; 537 o servers and clients could execute their transitions independently. 539 5. Implementation Status 541 NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior 542 to publication as an RFC. 544 This section records the status of known implementations of the 545 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 546 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 547 [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is 548 intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing 549 drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual 550 implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. 551 Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information 552 presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not 553 intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available 554 implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that 555 other implementations may exist. 557 According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups 558 to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of 559 running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation 560 and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. 561 It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as 562 they see fit". 564 5.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it 566 Responsible Organization: Institute of Informatics and Telematics 567 of National Research Council (IIT-CNR)/Registro.it 569 Location: https://rdap.pubtest.nic.it/ 571 Description: This implementation includes support for RDAP queries 572 using data from the public test environment of .it ccTLD. 574 Level of Maturity: This is a "proof of concept" research 575 implementation. 577 Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features 578 described in this specification. 580 Contact Information: Mario Loffredo, mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it 582 6. IANA Considerations 584 IANA is requested to register the following values in the RDAP 585 Extensions Registry: 587 Extension identifier: jscard 589 Registry operator: Any 591 Published specification: This document. 593 Contact: IETF 595 Intended usage: This extension represents a contact card provided 596 in an RDAP response according to the JSContact specification 597 ([draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact]). 599 7. Security Considerations 601 Unlike jCard, the formatted name as well as any other personally 602 identifiable information is not required in JSCard. The only 603 mandatory property, namely "uid", is usually an opaque string. 604 Therefore, redacted properties can be merely excluded without using 605 placeholder values. 607 8. References 609 8.1. Normative References 611 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 612 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 613 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 614 . 616 [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: 617 Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, 618 . 620 [RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) 621 Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, DOI 10.17487/RFC5733, 622 August 2009, . 624 [RFC6350] Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350, 625 DOI 10.17487/RFC6350, August 2011, 626 . 628 [RFC7095] Kewisch, P., "jCard: The JSON Format for vCard", RFC 7095, 629 DOI 10.17487/RFC7095, January 2014, 630 . 632 [RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access 633 Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, 634 DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015, 635 . 637 [RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the 638 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483, 639 DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015, 640 . 642 [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running 643 Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, 644 RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, 645 . 647 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 648 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 649 May 2017, . 651 [RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288, 652 DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017, 653 . 655 8.2. Informative References 657 [API-DEPRECATION] 658 Sandoval, K., "How to Smartly Sunset and Deprecate APIs", 659 August 2019, . 663 [draft-ietf-httpapi-deprecation-header] 664 Dalal, S. and E. Wilde, "The Deprecation HTTP Header 665 Field", . 668 [draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact] 669 Stepanek, R. and M. Loffredo, "JSContact: A JSON 670 representation of contact data", 671 . 674 [draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact-vcard] 675 Loffredo, M. and R. Stepanek, "JSContact: Converting from 676 and to vCard", . 679 [RDAP-PILOT-WG] 680 ICANN RDAP Pilot WG, "RDAP Pilot Report", April 2019, 681 . 684 Appendix A. Change Log 686 A.1. Change from 00 to 01 688 1. Changed category from "Best Current Practice" to "Standards 689 Track" 691 2. Replaced the example of Figure 1 693 3. Changed the title of the "Migration from JCard to JSCard" 694 section to "Transition Considerations" 696 4. Added Section 3.1 698 5. Updated Section 6 700 6. Updated Section 7 702 7. Rearranged the description of stage 1 in Section 4.2.1 704 8. Changed the names of the transition stages 1 and 2 706 9. Corrected Figure 2, Figure 4, Figure 5 708 10. Changed the rdapConformance tag "jscard_level_0" to "jscard" 710 11. Removed the "Best Practices for deprecating a REST API features" 711 section, but added a useful reference. 713 A.2. Change from 01 to 02 715 1. Removed the sentence "which cannot be represented using jCard" in 716 Section 1.1. 718 A.3. Change from 02 to 03 720 1. Updated section "Conventions Used in This Document". 722 2. Updated the contact in "IANA Considerations" section. 724 3. Changed the reference draft-loffredo-jmap-jscontact-vcard to 725 draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact-vcard. 727 4. Added reference to RFC8174. 729 5. Other minor edits. 731 A.4. Change from 03 to 04 733 1. Updated the reference draft-dalal-deprecation-header to draft- 734 ietf-httpapi-deprecation-header. 736 A.5. Initial WG version 738 1. Ported from draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-jcard-deprecation-04 739 renamed to draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-00. 741 A.6. Change from 00 to 01 743 1. Updated Section 3 and Figure 1. 745 Authors' Addresses 747 Mario Loffredo 748 IIT-CNR/Registro.it 749 Via Moruzzi,1 750 Pisa 56124 751 IT 753 Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it 754 URI: http://www.iit.cnr.it 756 Gavin Brown 757 CentralNic Group plc 758 Saddlers House, 44 Gutter Lane 759 London, England EC2V 6BR 760 GB 762 Phone: +44 20 33 88 0600 763 Email: gavin.brown@centralnic.com 764 URI: https://www.centralnic.com