idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-02.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 (May 28, 2021) is 1063 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: November 29, 2021 CentralNic Group plc 6 May 28, 2021 8 Using JSContact in Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) JSON 9 Responses 10 draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-02 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 November 29, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 58 4.1. RDAP Features Supporting a Transition Process . . . . . . 8 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 . . . . . . . . . . 9 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 Appendix B. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 85 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 87 1. Introduction 89 This document specifies an extension to the Registration Data Access 90 Protocol (RDAP) that allows RDAP servers to use JSContact 91 ([draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact]) to represent the contact information 92 associated with entities in RDAP responses, instead of jCard 93 ([RFC7095]). It also describes the process by which an RDAP server 94 can transition from jCard to JSContact. RDAP query and response 95 extensions are defined to facilitate the transition process. 97 1.1. Rationale 99 According to the feedback from RDAP Pilot Working Group 100 ([RDAP-PILOT-WG], a group of RDAP server implementers representing 101 registries and registrars of generic TLDs), the most commonly raised 102 implementation concern, for both servers and client implementers, 103 related to the use of jCard ([RFC7095]) to represent the contact 104 information associated with entities. Working Group members reported 105 jCard to be unintuitive, complicated to implement for both clients 106 and servers, and incompatible with best practices for RESTful APIs. 108 JSContact ([draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact]) provides a simpler and more 109 efficient representation for contact information. In addition, 110 similarly to jCard, it provides a means to represent 111 internationalised and unstructured contact information. Support for 112 internationalised contact information has been recognised being 113 necessary to facilitate the future internationalisation of 114 registration data directory services. 116 1.2. Conventions Used in This Document 118 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 119 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 120 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 121 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 122 capitals, as shown here. 124 2. JSContact 126 The JSContact specification defines a data model and JSON 127 representation of contact information that can be used for data 128 storage and exchange in address book or directory applications. It 129 aims to be an alternative to the vCard data format ([RFC6350]) and to 130 be unambiguous, extendable and simple to process. In contrast with 131 jCard, it is not a direct mapping from the vCard data model and 132 expands semantics where appropriate. 134 The JSContact specification declares two main object types: "Card", 135 which represents a single contact "card", and "CardGroup" which 136 represents a collection of Card objects. For the purpose of this 137 document, only Card objects are considered. To avoid confusion, in 138 the following of this document, the term "JSCard" is used to refer to 139 "JSContact Card". 141 JSCard differs from jCard in that it: 143 o follows an object-oriented rather than array-oriented approach; 144 o is simple to process; 146 o requires no extra work in serialization/deserialization from/to a 147 data model; 149 o includes no "jagged" arrays; 151 o prefers maps rather than arrays to implement collections; 153 o is able to represent redacted contacts (both "name" and"fullName" 154 properties are optional). 156 [draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact-vcard] provides informational guidance on 157 the conversion of jCard objects into JSCard objects, and vice versa. 159 3. Using JSCard objects in RDAP Responses 161 Entity objects in RDAP responses MAY include a "jscard" property 162 whose value is a JSCard object instead of the "vCardArray" property 163 defined in [RFC7483]. 165 Servers returning the "jscard" property in their response MUST 166 include "jscard" in the "rdapConformance" array. 168 The JSCard "uid" property SHOULD contain the same value as the RDAP 169 "handle" property. 171 Since most of the JSCard collections are represented as maps, map 172 keys must be defined. To aid interoperability, RDAP providers are 173 RECOMMENDED to use as map keys the string values and labels defined 174 in [RFC5733] while mapping mostly used contact information in 175 registries' context: 177 o "org" for the internationalized organization in the 178 "organizations" map. The localized version can be represented 179 through the "localizations" member; 181 o "int" for the internationalized postal address in the "addresses" 182 map; 184 o "loc" for the localized postal address in the "addresses" map; 186 o "email" for the email address in the "emails" map; 188 o "voice" for the voice number in the "phones" map; 190 o "fax" for the fax number in the "phones" map. 192 Implementers MAY use different mapping schemes to define keys for 193 additional entries of the aforementioned maps or others. 195 An example of an RDAP response containing a "jscard" property is 196 shown in Figure 1. The "jscard" object in this example has been 197 converted from the example included in section 5.1 of [RFC7483]. 199 { 200 "rdapConformance": [ 201 "rdap_level_0", 202 "jscard" 203 ], 204 "objectClassName" : "entity", 205 "handle":"XXXX", 206 "jscard":{ 207 "uid": "XXXX", 208 "fullName": { "value": "Joe User" }, 209 "kind": "individual", 210 "preferredContactLanguages": { 211 "fr": { "pref": 1 }, 212 "en": { "pref": 2 } 213 }, 214 "organizations": { 215 "org": { 216 "name": { "value": "Example" } 217 } 218 }, 219 "titles": { 220 "title-1": { 221 "title": { "value": "Research Scientist" } 222 }, 223 "title-2": { 224 "title": { "value": "Project Lead" } 225 } 226 }, 227 "addresses": { 228 "int": { 229 "contexts": { "work": true }, 230 "street": [ 231 { "type": "name", "value": "4321 Rue Somewhere"}, 232 { "type": "extension", "value": "Suite 1234"} 233 ], 234 "locality": "Quebec", 235 "region": "QC", 236 "postcode": "G1V 2M2", 237 "country": "Canada", 238 "coordinates": "geo:46.772673,-71.282945", 239 "timeZone": "Canada/Eastern" 241 }, 242 "home": { 243 "contexts": { "private": true }, 244 "fullAddress": { 245 "value": "123 Maple Ave\nSuite 90001\nVancouver\nBC\n1239\n" 246 } 247 } 248 }, 249 "phones": { 250 "voice" : { 251 "contexts": { "work": true }, 252 "features": { 253 "voice": true, 254 "cell": true, 255 "video": true, 256 "text": true 257 }, 258 "pref": 1, 259 "phone": "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102" 260 } 261 }, 262 "emails": { 263 "email": { 264 "contexts": { "work": true }, 265 "email": "joe.user@example.com" 266 } 267 }, 268 "online": { 269 "key": { 270 "contexts": { "work": true }, 271 "type": "uri", 272 "label": "key", 273 "resource": "http://www.example.com/joe.user/joe.asc" 274 }, 275 "url": { 276 "contexts": { "private": true }, 277 "type": "uri", 278 "label": "url", 279 "resource": "http://example.org" 280 } 281 } 282 }, 283 "roles":[ "registrar" ], 284 "publicIds":[ 285 { 286 "type":"IANA Registrar ID", 287 "identifier":"1" 288 } 290 ], 291 "remarks":[ 292 { 293 "description":[ 294 "She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.", 295 "Originally written by Terry Sullivan." 296 ] 297 } 298 ], 299 "links":[ 300 { 301 "value":"http://example.com/entity/XXXX", 302 "rel":"self", 303 "href":"http://example.com/entity/XXXX", 304 "type" : "application/rdap+json" 305 } 306 ], 307 "events":[ 308 { 309 "eventAction":"registration", 310 "eventDate":"1990-12-31T23:59:59Z" 311 } 312 ], 313 "asEventActor":[ 314 { 315 "eventAction":"last changed", 316 "eventDate":"1991-12-31T23:59:59Z" 317 } 318 ] 319 } 321 Figure 1: Example of "jscard" in RDAP response 323 3.1. RDAP Query Parameters 325 Two new query parameters are defined for the purpose of this 326 document. 328 The query parameters are OPTIONAL extensions of path segments defined 329 in [RFC7482]. They are as follows: 331 o "jscard": a boolean value that allows a client to request the 332 "jscard" property in the RDAP response; 334 o "jcard": a boolean value that allows a client to request the 335 "vcardArray" property in the RDAP response. 337 These parameters are furtherly explained in Section 4. 339 4. Transition Considerations 341 4.1. RDAP Features Supporting a Transition Process 343 4.1.1. Notices and Link Relationships 345 RDAP allows servers to communicate service information to clients 346 through notices. An RDAP response may contain one or more notice 347 objects ([RFC7483], Section 4.3), each of which may include a set of 348 link objects, which can be used to provide clients with references 349 and documentation. These link objects may have a "rel" property 350 which defines the relationship type, as described in [RFC8288], 351 Section 4. The transition process outlined in this document uses two 352 types of link relation: 354 o "deprecation", as described in 355 [draft-ietf-httpapi-deprecation-header]; 357 o "alternate", as described in [RFC8288]. 359 4.1.2. rdapConformance Property 361 The information about the specifications used in the construction of 362 the response is also described by the strings which appear in the 363 "rdapConformance" property of the RDAP response. 365 4.1.3. Query Parameters 367 Clients are able to ask servers to use specific RDAP features by 368 using appropriate query parameters as described in [RFC7482]. 370 4.2. Transition Procedure 372 The procedure for jCard to JSCard transition consists of four 373 contiguous stages. During the procedure, the presence of "jscard" 374 tag in the rdapConformance array indicates that JSCard is returned 375 instead of jCard. The time format used to notify clients about this 376 procedure is defined in [RFC3339]. 378 Some elements of the following procedure are based on the best 379 practices in [API-DEPRECATION]. 381 4.2.1. Transition Stages 382 4.2.1.1. Stage 1: only jCard provided 384 This stage corresponds to providing jCard as default contact card 385 ([RFC7483]). The RDAP server is not able to provide an alternate 386 contact card. The rdapConformance array MUST NOT contain the 387 "jscard" tag. 389 4.2.1.2. Stage 2: jCard sunset 391 During this stage, the server uses jCard by default, but the RDAP 392 server will return JSCard if the client sets the query parameter 393 "jscard" to a true value. The rdapConformance array MUST contain the 394 "jscard" tag if JSCard is requested. 396 The RDAP server SHOULD include a notice titled "jCard sunset end". 397 Such a notice should include a description reporting the jCard sunset 398 end time and two links: 400 o "deprecation": a link to a URI-identified resource documenting the 401 jCard deprecation; 403 o "alternate": if JSCard is not requested, a link to the JSCard 404 version of same resource as identified by the current query string 405 plus the parameter "jscard" set to a true value (Figure 2); 406 otherwise, only the "deprecation" link is provided (Figure 3). 408 "notices": [ 409 { 410 "title": "jCard sunset end", 411 "description": ["2020-07-01T00:00:00Z"], 412 "links": [{ 413 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 414 "rel": "deprecation", 415 "type": "text/html", 416 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 417 }, 418 { 419 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 420 "rel": "alternate", 421 "type": "application/rdap+json", 422 "href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jscard=1" 423 } 424 ] 425 } 426 ] 428 Figure 2: jCard sunset - JSCard not requested 430 "notices": [ 431 { 432 "title": "jCard sunset end", 433 "description": ["2020-07-01T00:00:00Z"], 434 "links": [ 435 { 436 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jscard=1", 437 "rel": "deprecation", 438 "type": "text/html", 439 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 440 } 441 ] 442 } 443 ] 445 Figure 3: jCard sunset - JSCard requested 447 4.2.1.3. Stage 3: jCard deprecation 449 This stage corresponds to the provisioning of JSCard by default, but 450 the RDAP will return jCard if the client sets the query parameter 451 "jcard" to a true value. The rdapConformance array contains the 452 "jscard" tag unless jCard is requested. The "jscard" query parameter 453 is ignored. 455 The RDAP server SHOULD to return a notice titled "jCard deprecation 456 end". Such a notice should include a description reporting the jCard 457 deprecation end time and two links: 459 o "deprecation": a link to a URI-identified resource documenting the 460 jCard deprecation; 462 o "alternate": if jCard is not requested, a link to the jCard 463 version of the same resource as identified by the current query 464 string plus the parameter "jcard" set to 1/true/yes (Figure 4); 465 otherwise, a link to the JSCard version of the same resource as 466 identified by the current query string without the parameter 467 "jcard" (Figure 5). 469 "notices": [ 470 { 471 "title": "jCard deprecation end", 472 "description": ["2020-12-31T23:59:59Z"], 473 "links": [ 474 { 475 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 476 "rel": "deprecation", 477 "type": "text/html", 478 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 479 }, 480 { 481 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 482 "rel": "alternate", 483 "type": "application/rdap+json", 484 "href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1" 485 } 486 ] 487 } 488 ] 490 Figure 4: jCard deprecation - jCard not requested 492 "notices": [ 493 { 494 "title": "jCard deprecation end", 495 "description": ["2020-12-31T23:59:59Z"], 496 "links": [ 497 { 498 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1", 499 "rel": "deprecation", 500 "type": "text/html", 501 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 502 }, 503 { 504 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1", 505 "rel": "alternate", 506 "type": "application/rdap+json", 507 "href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX" 508 } 509 ] 510 } 511 ] 513 Figure 5: jCard deprecation - jCard requested 515 4.2.1.4. Stage 4: jCard deprecated 517 This stage corresponds to providing JSCard as default contact card. 518 The RDAP server is not able to provide an alternate contact card. 519 The rdapConformance array always contains "jscard" tag. The RDAP 520 server doesn't include any notice about the jCard deprecation 521 process. Both "jscard" and "jcard" query parameters are ignored. 523 4.2.1.5. Length 525 The length of both jCard sunset and jCard deprecation periods are not 526 fixed by this specification. Best practices in REST API deprecation 527 suggest that, depending on the deprecated API's reach, user base and 528 service offering, a convenient time could be anywhere between 3 - 8 529 months. Anyway, RDAP providers are recommended to monitor the server 530 log to figure out whether declared times need to be changed to meet 531 client requirements. 533 4.2.1.6. Goals 535 The procedure described in this document achieves the following 536 goals: 538 o only one contact representation would be included in the response; 540 o the response would always be compliant to [RFC7483]; 542 o clients would be informed about the transition timeline; 544 o the backward compatibility would be guaranteed throughout the 545 transition; 547 o servers and clients could execute their transitions independently. 549 5. Implementation Status 551 NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior 552 to publication as an RFC. 554 This section records the status of known implementations of the 555 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 556 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 557 [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is 558 intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing 559 drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual 560 implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. 561 Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information 562 presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not 563 intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available 564 implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that 565 other implementations may exist. 567 According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups 568 to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of 569 running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation 570 and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. 571 It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as 572 they see fit". 574 5.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it 576 Responsible Organization: Institute of Informatics and Telematics 577 of National Research Council (IIT-CNR)/Registro.it 579 Location: https://rdap.pubtest.nic.it/ 581 Description: This implementation includes support for RDAP queries 582 using data from the public test environment of .it ccTLD. 584 Level of Maturity: This is a "proof of concept" research 585 implementation. 587 Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features 588 described in this specification. 590 Contact Information: Mario Loffredo, mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it 592 6. IANA Considerations 594 IANA is requested to register the following values in the RDAP 595 Extensions Registry: 597 Extension identifier: jscard 599 Registry operator: Any 601 Published specification: This document. 603 Contact: IETF 605 Intended usage: This extension represents a contact card provided 606 in an RDAP response according to the JSContact specification 607 ([draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact]). 609 7. Security Considerations 611 Unlike jCard, the formatted name as well as any other personally 612 identifiable information is not required in JSCard. The only 613 mandatory property, namely "uid", is usually an opaque string. 614 Therefore, redacted properties can be merely excluded without using 615 placeholder values. 617 8. References 619 8.1. Normative References 621 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 622 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 623 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 624 . 626 [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: 627 Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, 628 . 630 [RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) 631 Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, DOI 10.17487/RFC5733, 632 August 2009, . 634 [RFC6350] Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350, 635 DOI 10.17487/RFC6350, August 2011, 636 . 638 [RFC7095] Kewisch, P., "jCard: The JSON Format for vCard", RFC 7095, 639 DOI 10.17487/RFC7095, January 2014, 640 . 642 [RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access 643 Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, 644 DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015, 645 . 647 [RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the 648 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483, 649 DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015, 650 . 652 [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running 653 Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, 654 RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, 655 . 657 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 658 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 659 May 2017, . 661 [RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288, 662 DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017, 663 . 665 8.2. Informative References 667 [API-DEPRECATION] 668 Sandoval, K., "How to Smartly Sunset and Deprecate APIs", 669 August 2019, . 673 [draft-ietf-httpapi-deprecation-header] 674 Dalal, S. and E. Wilde, "The Deprecation HTTP Header 675 Field", . 678 [draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact] 679 Stepanek, R. and M. Loffredo, "JSContact: A JSON 680 representation of contact data", 681 . 684 [draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact-vcard] 685 Loffredo, M. and R. Stepanek, "JSContact: Converting from 686 and to vCard", . 689 [RDAP-PILOT-WG] 690 ICANN RDAP Pilot WG, "RDAP Pilot Report", April 2019, 691 . 694 Appendix A. Change Log 696 A.1. Change from 00 to 01 698 1. Changed category from "Best Current Practice" to "Standards 699 Track" 701 2. Replaced the example of Figure 1 703 3. Changed the title of the "Migration from JCard to JSCard" 704 section to "Transition Considerations" 706 4. Added Section 3.1 708 5. Updated Section 6 710 6. Updated Section 7 712 7. Rearranged the description of stage 1 in Section 4.2.1 714 8. Changed the names of the transition stages 1 and 2 716 9. Corrected Figure 2, Figure 4, Figure 5 718 10. Changed the rdapConformance tag "jscard_level_0" to "jscard" 720 11. Removed the "Best Practices for deprecating a REST API features" 721 section, but added a useful reference. 723 A.2. Change from 01 to 02 725 1. Removed the sentence "which cannot be represented using jCard" in 726 Section 1.1. 728 A.3. Change from 02 to 03 730 1. Updated section "Conventions Used in This Document". 732 2. Updated the contact in "IANA Considerations" section. 734 3. Changed the reference draft-loffredo-jmap-jscontact-vcard to 735 draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact-vcard. 737 4. Added reference to RFC8174. 739 5. Other minor edits. 741 A.4. Change from 03 to 04 743 1. Updated the reference draft-dalal-deprecation-header to draft- 744 ietf-httpapi-deprecation-header. 746 A.5. Initial WG version 748 1. Ported from draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-jcard-deprecation-04 749 renamed to draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-00. 751 A.6. Change from 00 to 01 753 1. Updated Section 3 and Figure 1. 755 Appendix B. Change from 01 to 02 757 1. Updated Section 2 and Figure 1. 759 Authors' Addresses 761 Mario Loffredo 762 IIT-CNR/Registro.it 763 Via Moruzzi,1 764 Pisa 56124 765 IT 767 Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it 768 URI: http://www.iit.cnr.it 770 Gavin Brown 771 CentralNic Group plc 772 Saddlers House, 44 Gutter Lane 773 London, England EC2V 6BR 774 GB 776 Phone: +44 20 33 88 0600 777 Email: gavin.brown@centralnic.com 778 URI: https://www.centralnic.com