idnits 2.17.1 draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-jcard-deprecation-03.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 (July 31, 2020) is 1355 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: February 1, 2021 CentralNic Group plc 6 July 31, 2020 8 Using JSContact in Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) JSON 9 Responses 10 draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-jcard-deprecation-03 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 February 1, 2021. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2020 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 023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 81 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 83 1. Introduction 85 This document specifies an extension to the Registration Data Access 86 Protocol (RDAP) that allows RDAP servers to use JSContact 87 ([draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact]) to represent the contact information 88 associated with entities in RDAP responses, instead of jCard 89 ([RFC7095]). It also describes the process by which an RDAP server 90 can transition from jCard to JSContact. RDAP query and response 91 extensions are defined to facilitate the transition process. 93 1.1. Rationale 95 According to the feedback from RDAP Pilot Working Group 96 ([RDAP-PILOT-WG], a group of RDAP server implementers representing 97 registries and registrars of generic TLDs), the most commonly raised 98 implementation concern, for both servers and client implementers, 99 related to the use of jCard ([RFC7095]) to represent the contact 100 information associated with entities. Working Group members reported 101 jCard to be unintuitive, complicated to implement for both clients 102 and servers, and incompatible with best practices for RESTful APIs. 104 JSContact ([draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact]) provides a simpler and more 105 efficient representation for contact information. In addition, 106 similarly to jCard, it provides a means to represent 107 internationalised and unstructured contact information. Support for 108 internationalised contact information has been recognised being 109 necessary to facilitate the future internationalisation of 110 registration data directory services. 112 1.2. Conventions Used in This Document 114 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 115 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 116 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 117 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 118 capitals, as shown here. 120 2. JSContact 122 The JSContact specification defines a data model and JSON 123 representation of contact information that can be used for data 124 storage and exchange in address book or directory applications. It 125 aims to be an alternative to the vCard data format ([RFC6350]) and to 126 be unambiguous, extendable and simple to process. In contrast with 127 jCard, it is not a direct mapping from the vCard data model and 128 expands semantics where appropriate. 130 The JSContact specification declares two main object types: "JSCard", 131 which represents a single contact "card", and "JSCardGroup" which 132 represents a collection of JSCard objects. For the purpose of this 133 document, only JSCard objects are considered. 135 JSCard differs from jCard in that it: 137 o follows an object-oriented rather than array-oriented approach; 139 o is simple to process; 140 o requires no extra work in serialization/deserialization from/to a 141 data model; 143 o includes no "jagged" arrays; 145 o prefers maps rather than arrays to implement collections; 147 o is able to represent redacted contacts (both "name" and"fullName" 148 properties are optional). 150 [draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact-vcard] provides informational guidance on 151 the conversion of jCard objects into JSCard objects, and vice versa. 153 3. Using JSCard objects in RDAP Responses 155 Entity objects in RDAP responses MAY include a "jscard" property 156 whose value is a JSCard object instead of the "vCardArray" property 157 defined in [RFC7483]. 159 Servers returning the "jscard" property in their response MUST 160 include "jscard" in the "rdapConformance" array. 162 An example of an RDAP response containing a "jscard" property is 163 shown in Figure 1. The "jscard" object in this example has been 164 converted from the example included in section 5.1 of [RFC7483]. 166 { 167 "rdapConformance": [ 168 "rdap_level_0", 169 "jscard" 170 ], 171 "objectClassName" : "entity", 172 "handle":"XXXX", 173 "jscard":{ 174 "uid": "XXXX", 175 "fullName": { "value": "Joe User" }, 176 "kind": "individual", 177 "preferredContactLanguages": { 178 "fr": { "preference": 1 }, 179 "en": { "preference": 2 } 180 }, 181 "organization": [ { "value": "Example" } ], 182 "jobTitle": [ { "value": "Research Scientist" } ], 183 "role": [ { "value": "Project Lead" } ], 184 "addresses": [ 185 { 186 "context": "work", 187 "extension": "Suite 1234", 188 "street": "4321 Rue Somewhere", 189 "locality": "Quebec", 190 "region": "QC", 191 "postcode": "G1V 2M2", 192 "country": "Canada", 193 "coordinates": "geo:46.772673,-71.282945", 194 "timeZone": "Canada/Eastern" 195 }, 196 { 197 "context": "private", 198 "fullAddress": { 199 "value": "123 Maple Ave\nSuite 90001\nVancouver\nBC\n1239\n" 200 } 201 } 202 ], 203 "phones": [ 204 { 205 "context": "work", 206 "type": "voice", 207 "labels": { 208 "cell": true, 209 "video": true, 210 "text": true 211 }, 212 "isPreferred": true, 213 "value": "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102" 214 } 215 ], 216 "emails": [ 217 { 218 "context": "work", 219 "value": "joe.user@example.com" 220 } 221 ], 222 "online": [ 223 { 224 "context": "work", 225 "type": "uri", 226 "labels": { "key": true }, 227 "value": "http://www.example.com/joe.user/joe.asc" 228 }, 229 { 230 "context": "private", 231 "type": "uri", 232 "labels": { "url": true }, 233 "value": "http://example.org" 234 } 235 ] 237 } 238 "roles":[ "registrar" ], 239 "publicIds":[ 240 { 241 "type":"IANA Registrar ID", 242 "identifier":"1" 243 } 244 ], 245 "remarks":[ 246 { 247 "description":[ 248 "She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.", 249 "Originally written by Terry Sullivan." 250 ] 251 } 252 ], 253 "links":[ 254 { 255 "value":"http://example.com/entity/XXXX", 256 "rel":"self", 257 "href":"http://example.com/entity/XXXX", 258 "type" : "application/rdap+json" 259 } 260 ], 261 "events":[ 262 { 263 "eventAction":"registration", 264 "eventDate":"1990-12-31T23:59:59Z" 265 } 266 ], 267 "asEventActor":[ 268 { 269 "eventAction":"last changed", 270 "eventDate":"1991-12-31T23:59:59Z" 271 } 272 ] 273 } 275 Figure 1: Example of "jscard" in RDAP response 277 3.1. RDAP Query Parameters 279 Two new query parameters are defined for the purpose of this 280 document. 282 The query parameters are OPTIONAL extensions of path segments defined 283 in [RFC7482]. They are as follows: 285 o "jscard": a boolean value that allows a client to request the 286 "jscard" property in the RDAP response; 288 o "jcard": a boolean value that allows a client to request the 289 "vcardArray" property in the RDAP response. 291 These parameters are furtherly explained in Section 4. 293 4. Transition Considerations 295 4.1. RDAP Features Supporting a Transition Process 297 4.1.1. Notices and Link Relationships 299 RDAP allows servers to communicate service information to clients 300 through notices. An RDAP response may contain one or more notice 301 objects ([RFC7483], Section 4.3), each of which may include a set of 302 link objects, which can be used to provide clients with references 303 and documentation. These link objects may have a "rel" property 304 which defines the relationship type, as described in [RFC8288], 305 Section 4. The transition process outlined in this document uses two 306 types of link relation: 308 o "deprecation", as described in [draft-dalal-deprecation-header]; 310 o "alternate", as described in [RFC8288]. 312 4.1.2. rdapConformance Property 314 The information about the specifications used in the construction of 315 the response is also described by the strings which appear in the 316 "rdapConformance" property of the RDAP response. 318 4.1.3. Query Parameters 320 Clients are able to ask servers to use specific RDAP features by 321 using appropriate query parameters as described in [RFC7482]. 323 4.2. Transition Procedure 325 The procedure for jCard to JSCard transition consists of four 326 contiguous stages. During the procedure, the presence of "jscard" 327 tag in the rdapConformance array indicates that JSCard is returned 328 instead of jCard. The time format used to notify clients about this 329 procedure is defined in [RFC3339]. 331 Some elements of the following procedure are based on the best 332 practices in [API-DEPRECATION]. 334 4.2.1. Transition Stages 336 4.2.1.1. Stage 1: only jCard provided 338 This stage corresponds to providing jCard as default contact card 339 ([RFC7483]). The RDAP server is not able to provide an alternate 340 contact card. The rdapConformance array MUST NOT contain the 341 "jscard" tag. 343 4.2.1.2. Stage 2: jCard sunset 345 During this stage, the server uses jCard by default, but the RDAP 346 server will return JSCard if the client sets the query parameter 347 "jscard" to a true value. The rdapConformance array MUST contain the 348 "jscard" tag if JSCard is requested. 350 The RDAP server SHOULD include a notice titled "jCard sunset end". 351 Such a notice should include a description reporting the jCard sunset 352 end time and two links: 354 o "deprecation": a link to a URI-identified resource documenting the 355 jCard deprecation; 357 o "alternate": if JSCard is not requested, a link to the JSCard 358 version of same resource as identified by the current query string 359 plus the parameter "jscard" set to a true value (Figure 2); 360 otherwise, only the "deprecation" link is provided (Figure 3). 362 "notices": [ 363 { 364 "title": "jCard sunset end", 365 "description": ["2020-07-01T00:00:00Z"], 366 "links": [{ 367 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 368 "rel": "deprecation", 369 "type": "text/html", 370 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 371 }, 372 { 373 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 374 "rel": "alternate", 375 "type": "application/rdap+json", 376 "href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jscard=1" 377 } 378 ] 379 } 380 ] 382 Figure 2: jCard sunset - JSCard not requested 384 "notices": [ 385 { 386 "title": "jCard sunset end", 387 "description": ["2020-07-01T00:00:00Z"], 388 "links": [ 389 { 390 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jscard=1", 391 "rel": "deprecation", 392 "type": "text/html", 393 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 394 } 395 ] 396 } 397 ] 399 Figure 3: jCard sunset - JSCard requested 401 4.2.1.3. Stage 3: jCard deprecation 403 This stage corresponds to the provisioning of JSCard by default, but 404 the RDAP will return jCard if the client sets the query parameter 405 "jcard" to a true value. The rdapConformance array contains the 406 "jscard" tag unless jCard is requested. The "jscard" query parameter 407 is ignored. 409 The RDAP server SHOULD to return a notice titled "jCard deprecation 410 end". Such a notice should include a description reporting the jCard 411 deprecation end time and two links: 413 o "deprecation": a link to a URI-identified resource documenting the 414 jCard deprecation; 416 o "alternate": if jCard is not requested, a link to the jCard 417 version of the same resource as identified by the current query 418 string plus the parameter "jcard" set to 1/true/yes (Figure 4); 419 otherwise, a link to the JSCard version of the same resource as 420 identified by the current query string without the parameter 421 "jcard" (Figure 5). 423 "notices": [ 424 { 425 "title": "jCard deprecation end", 426 "description": ["2020-12-31T23:59:59Z"], 427 "links": [ 428 { 429 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 430 "rel": "deprecation", 431 "type": "text/html", 432 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 433 }, 434 { 435 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 436 "rel": "alternate", 437 "type": "application/rdap+json", 438 "href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1" 439 } 440 ] 441 } 442 ] 444 Figure 4: jCard deprecation - jCard not requested 446 "notices": [ 447 { 448 "title": "jCard deprecation end", 449 "description": ["2020-12-31T23:59:59Z"], 450 "links": [ 451 { 452 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1", 453 "rel": "deprecation", 454 "type": "text/html", 455 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 456 }, 457 { 458 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1", 459 "rel": "alternate", 460 "type": "application/rdap+json", 461 "href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX" 462 } 463 ] 464 } 465 ] 467 Figure 5: jCard deprecation - jCard requested 469 4.2.1.4. Stage 4: jCard deprecated 471 This stage corresponds to providing JSCard as default contact card. 472 The RDAP server is not able to provide an alternate contact card. 473 The rdapConformance array always contains "jscard" tag. The RDAP 474 server doesn't include any notice about the jCard deprecation 475 process. Both "jscard" and "jcard" query parameters are ignored. 477 4.2.1.5. Length 479 The length of both jCard sunset and jCard deprecation periods are not 480 fixed by this specification. Best practices in REST API deprecation 481 suggest that, depending on the deprecated API's reach, user base and 482 service offering, a convenient time could be anywhere between 3 - 8 483 months. Anyway, RDAP providers are recommended to monitor the server 484 log to figure out whether declared times need to be changed to meet 485 client requirements. 487 4.2.1.6. Goals 489 The procedure described in this document achieves the following 490 goals: 492 o only one contact representation would be included in the response; 493 o the response would always be compliant to [RFC7483]; 495 o clients would be informed about the transition timeline; 497 o the backward compatibility would be guaranteed throughout the 498 transition; 500 o servers and clients could execute their transitions independently. 502 5. Implementation Status 504 NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior 505 to publication as an RFC. 507 This section records the status of known implementations of the 508 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 509 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 510 [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is 511 intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing 512 drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual 513 implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. 514 Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information 515 presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not 516 intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available 517 implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that 518 other implementations may exist. 520 According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups 521 to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of 522 running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation 523 and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. 524 It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as 525 they see fit". 527 5.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it 529 Responsible Organization: Institute of Informatics and Telematics 530 of National Research Council (IIT-CNR)/Registro.it 532 Location: https://rdap.pubtest.nic.it/ 534 Description: This implementation includes support for RDAP queries 535 using data from the public test environment of .it ccTLD. 537 Level of Maturity: This is a "proof of concept" research 538 implementation. 540 Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features 541 described in this specification. 543 Contact Information: Mario Loffredo, mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it 545 6. IANA Considerations 547 IANA is requested to register the following values in the RDAP 548 Extensions Registry: 550 Extension identifier: jscard 552 Registry operator: Any 554 Published specification: This document. 556 Contact: IETF 558 Intended usage: This extension represents a contact card provided 559 in an RDAP response according to the JSContact specification 560 ([draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact]). 562 7. Security Considerations 564 Unlike jCard, the formatted name as well as any other personally 565 identifiable information is not required in JSCard. The only 566 mandatory property, namely "uid", is usually an opaque string. 567 Therefore, redacted properties can be merely excluded without using 568 placeholder values. 570 8. References 572 8.1. Normative References 574 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 575 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 576 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 577 . 579 [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: 580 Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, 581 . 583 [RFC6350] Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350, 584 DOI 10.17487/RFC6350, August 2011, 585 . 587 [RFC7095] Kewisch, P., "jCard: The JSON Format for vCard", RFC 7095, 588 DOI 10.17487/RFC7095, January 2014, 589 . 591 [RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access 592 Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, 593 DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015, 594 . 596 [RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the 597 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483, 598 DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015, 599 . 601 [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running 602 Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, 603 RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, 604 . 606 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 607 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 608 May 2017, . 610 [RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288, 611 DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017, 612 . 614 8.2. Informative References 616 [API-DEPRECATION] 617 Sandoval, K., "How to Smartly Sunset and Deprecate APIs", 618 August 2019, . 622 [draft-dalal-deprecation-header] 623 Dalal, S. and E. Wilde, "The Deprecation HTTP Header 624 Field", . 627 [draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact] 628 Stepanek, R. and M. Loffredo, "JSContact: A JSON 629 representation of contact data", 630 . 633 [draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact-vcard] 634 Loffredo, M. and R. Stepanek, "JSContact: Converting from 635 and to vCard", . 638 [RDAP-PILOT-WG] 639 ICANN RDAP Pilot WG, "RDAP Pilot Report", April 2019, 640 . 643 Appendix A. Change Log 645 A.1. Change from 00 to 01 647 1. Changed category from "Best Current Practice" to "Standards 648 Track" 650 2. Replaced the example of Figure 1 652 3. Changed the title of the "Migration from JCard to JSCard" 653 section to "Transition Considerations" 655 4. Added Section 3.1 657 5. Updated Section 6 659 6. Updated Section 7 661 7. Rearranged the description of stage 1 in Section 4.2.1 663 8. Changed the names of the transition stages 1 and 2 665 9. Corrected Figure 2, Figure 4, Figure 5 667 10. Changed the rdapConformance tag "jscard_level_0" to "jscard" 669 11. Removed the "Best Practices for deprecating a REST API features" 670 section, but added a useful reference. 672 A.2. Change from 01 to 02 674 1. Removed the sentence "which cannot be represented using jCard" in 675 Section 1.1. 677 A.3. Change from 02 to 023 679 1. Updated section "Conventions Used in This Document". 681 2. Updated the contact in "IANA Considerations" section. 683 3. Changed the reference draft-loffredo-jmap-jscontact-vcard to 684 draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact-vcard. 686 4. Added reference to RFC8174. 688 5. Other minor edits. 690 Authors' Addresses 692 Mario Loffredo 693 IIT-CNR/Registro.it 694 Via Moruzzi,1 695 Pisa 56124 696 IT 698 Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it 699 URI: http://www.iit.cnr.it 701 Gavin Brown 702 CentralNic Group plc 703 Saddlers House, 44 Gutter Lane 704 London, England EC2V 6BR 705 GB 707 Phone: +44 20 33 88 0600 708 Email: gavin.brown@centralnic.com 709 URI: https://www.centralnic.com