idnits 2.17.1 draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-jcard-deprecation-04.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 (January 24, 2021) is 1182 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: July 28, 2021 CentralNic Group plc 6 January 24, 2021 8 Using JSContact in Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) JSON 9 Responses 10 draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-jcard-deprecation-04 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 July 28, 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 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 84 1. Introduction 86 This document specifies an extension to the Registration Data Access 87 Protocol (RDAP) that allows RDAP servers to use JSContact 88 ([draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact]) to represent the contact information 89 associated with entities in RDAP responses, instead of jCard 90 ([RFC7095]). It also describes the process by which an RDAP server 91 can transition from jCard to JSContact. RDAP query and response 92 extensions are defined to facilitate the transition process. 94 1.1. Rationale 96 According to the feedback from RDAP Pilot Working Group 97 ([RDAP-PILOT-WG], a group of RDAP server implementers representing 98 registries and registrars of generic TLDs), the most commonly raised 99 implementation concern, for both servers and client implementers, 100 related to the use of jCard ([RFC7095]) to represent the contact 101 information associated with entities. Working Group members reported 102 jCard to be unintuitive, complicated to implement for both clients 103 and servers, and incompatible with best practices for RESTful APIs. 105 JSContact ([draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact]) provides a simpler and more 106 efficient representation for contact information. In addition, 107 similarly to jCard, it provides a means to represent 108 internationalised and unstructured contact information. Support for 109 internationalised contact information has been recognised being 110 necessary to facilitate the future internationalisation of 111 registration data directory services. 113 1.2. Conventions Used in This Document 115 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 116 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 117 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 118 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 119 capitals, as shown here. 121 2. JSContact 123 The JSContact specification defines a data model and JSON 124 representation of contact information that can be used for data 125 storage and exchange in address book or directory applications. It 126 aims to be an alternative to the vCard data format ([RFC6350]) and to 127 be unambiguous, extendable and simple to process. In contrast with 128 jCard, it is not a direct mapping from the vCard data model and 129 expands semantics where appropriate. 131 The JSContact specification declares two main object types: "JSCard", 132 which represents a single contact "card", and "JSCardGroup" which 133 represents a collection of JSCard objects. For the purpose of this 134 document, only JSCard objects are considered. 136 JSCard differs from jCard in that it: 138 o follows an object-oriented rather than array-oriented approach; 140 o is simple to process; 141 o requires no extra work in serialization/deserialization from/to a 142 data model; 144 o includes no "jagged" arrays; 146 o prefers maps rather than arrays to implement collections; 148 o is able to represent redacted contacts (both "name" and"fullName" 149 properties are optional). 151 [draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact-vcard] provides informational guidance on 152 the conversion of jCard objects into JSCard objects, and vice versa. 154 3. Using JSCard objects in RDAP Responses 156 Entity objects in RDAP responses MAY include a "jscard" property 157 whose value is a JSCard object instead of the "vCardArray" property 158 defined in [RFC7483]. 160 Servers returning the "jscard" property in their response MUST 161 include "jscard" in the "rdapConformance" array. 163 An example of an RDAP response containing a "jscard" property is 164 shown in Figure 1. The "jscard" object in this example has been 165 converted from the example included in section 5.1 of [RFC7483]. 167 { 168 "rdapConformance": [ 169 "rdap_level_0", 170 "jscard" 171 ], 172 "objectClassName" : "entity", 173 "handle":"XXXX", 174 "jscard":{ 175 "uid": "XXXX", 176 "fullName": { "value": "Joe User" }, 177 "kind": "individual", 178 "preferredContactLanguages": { 179 "fr": { "preference": 1 }, 180 "en": { "preference": 2 } 181 }, 182 "organization": [ { "value": "Example" } ], 183 "jobTitle": [ { "value": "Research Scientist" } ], 184 "role": [ { "value": "Project Lead" } ], 185 "addresses": [ 186 { 187 "context": "work", 188 "extension": "Suite 1234", 189 "street": "4321 Rue Somewhere", 190 "locality": "Quebec", 191 "region": "QC", 192 "postcode": "G1V 2M2", 193 "country": "Canada", 194 "coordinates": "geo:46.772673,-71.282945", 195 "timeZone": "Canada/Eastern" 196 }, 197 { 198 "context": "private", 199 "fullAddress": { 200 "value": "123 Maple Ave\nSuite 90001\nVancouver\nBC\n1239\n" 201 } 202 } 203 ], 204 "phones": [ 205 { 206 "context": "work", 207 "type": "voice", 208 "labels": { 209 "cell": true, 210 "video": true, 211 "text": true 212 }, 213 "isPreferred": true, 214 "value": "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102" 215 } 216 ], 217 "emails": [ 218 { 219 "context": "work", 220 "value": "joe.user@example.com" 221 } 222 ], 223 "online": [ 224 { 225 "context": "work", 226 "type": "uri", 227 "labels": { "key": true }, 228 "value": "http://www.example.com/joe.user/joe.asc" 229 }, 230 { 231 "context": "private", 232 "type": "uri", 233 "labels": { "url": true }, 234 "value": "http://example.org" 235 } 236 ] 238 } 239 "roles":[ "registrar" ], 240 "publicIds":[ 241 { 242 "type":"IANA Registrar ID", 243 "identifier":"1" 244 } 245 ], 246 "remarks":[ 247 { 248 "description":[ 249 "She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.", 250 "Originally written by Terry Sullivan." 251 ] 252 } 253 ], 254 "links":[ 255 { 256 "value":"http://example.com/entity/XXXX", 257 "rel":"self", 258 "href":"http://example.com/entity/XXXX", 259 "type" : "application/rdap+json" 260 } 261 ], 262 "events":[ 263 { 264 "eventAction":"registration", 265 "eventDate":"1990-12-31T23:59:59Z" 266 } 267 ], 268 "asEventActor":[ 269 { 270 "eventAction":"last changed", 271 "eventDate":"1991-12-31T23:59:59Z" 272 } 273 ] 274 } 276 Figure 1: Example of "jscard" in RDAP response 278 3.1. RDAP Query Parameters 280 Two new query parameters are defined for the purpose of this 281 document. 283 The query parameters are OPTIONAL extensions of path segments defined 284 in [RFC7482]. They are as follows: 286 o "jscard": a boolean value that allows a client to request the 287 "jscard" property in the RDAP response; 289 o "jcard": a boolean value that allows a client to request the 290 "vcardArray" property in the RDAP response. 292 These parameters are furtherly explained in Section 4. 294 4. Transition Considerations 296 4.1. RDAP Features Supporting a Transition Process 298 4.1.1. Notices and Link Relationships 300 RDAP allows servers to communicate service information to clients 301 through notices. An RDAP response may contain one or more notice 302 objects ([RFC7483], Section 4.3), each of which may include a set of 303 link objects, which can be used to provide clients with references 304 and documentation. These link objects may have a "rel" property 305 which defines the relationship type, as described in [RFC8288], 306 Section 4. The transition process outlined in this document uses two 307 types of link relation: 309 o "deprecation", as described in 310 [draft-ietf-httpapi-deprecation-header]; 312 o "alternate", as described in [RFC8288]. 314 4.1.2. rdapConformance Property 316 The information about the specifications used in the construction of 317 the response is also described by the strings which appear in the 318 "rdapConformance" property of the RDAP response. 320 4.1.3. Query Parameters 322 Clients are able to ask servers to use specific RDAP features by 323 using appropriate query parameters as described in [RFC7482]. 325 4.2. Transition Procedure 327 The procedure for jCard to JSCard transition consists of four 328 contiguous stages. During the procedure, the presence of "jscard" 329 tag in the rdapConformance array indicates that JSCard is returned 330 instead of jCard. The time format used to notify clients about this 331 procedure is defined in [RFC3339]. 333 Some elements of the following procedure are based on the best 334 practices in [API-DEPRECATION]. 336 4.2.1. Transition Stages 338 4.2.1.1. Stage 1: only jCard provided 340 This stage corresponds to providing jCard as default contact card 341 ([RFC7483]). The RDAP server is not able to provide an alternate 342 contact card. The rdapConformance array MUST NOT contain the 343 "jscard" tag. 345 4.2.1.2. Stage 2: jCard sunset 347 During this stage, the server uses jCard by default, but the RDAP 348 server will return JSCard if the client sets the query parameter 349 "jscard" to a true value. The rdapConformance array MUST contain the 350 "jscard" tag if JSCard is requested. 352 The RDAP server SHOULD include a notice titled "jCard sunset end". 353 Such a notice should include a description reporting the jCard sunset 354 end time and two links: 356 o "deprecation": a link to a URI-identified resource documenting the 357 jCard deprecation; 359 o "alternate": if JSCard is not requested, a link to the JSCard 360 version of same resource as identified by the current query string 361 plus the parameter "jscard" set to a true value (Figure 2); 362 otherwise, only the "deprecation" link is provided (Figure 3). 364 "notices": [ 365 { 366 "title": "jCard sunset end", 367 "description": ["2020-07-01T00:00:00Z"], 368 "links": [{ 369 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 370 "rel": "deprecation", 371 "type": "text/html", 372 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 373 }, 374 { 375 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 376 "rel": "alternate", 377 "type": "application/rdap+json", 378 "href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jscard=1" 379 } 380 ] 381 } 382 ] 384 Figure 2: jCard sunset - JSCard not requested 386 "notices": [ 387 { 388 "title": "jCard sunset end", 389 "description": ["2020-07-01T00:00:00Z"], 390 "links": [ 391 { 392 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jscard=1", 393 "rel": "deprecation", 394 "type": "text/html", 395 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 396 } 397 ] 398 } 399 ] 401 Figure 3: jCard sunset - JSCard requested 403 4.2.1.3. Stage 3: jCard deprecation 405 This stage corresponds to the provisioning of JSCard by default, but 406 the RDAP will return jCard if the client sets the query parameter 407 "jcard" to a true value. The rdapConformance array contains the 408 "jscard" tag unless jCard is requested. The "jscard" query parameter 409 is ignored. 411 The RDAP server SHOULD to return a notice titled "jCard deprecation 412 end". Such a notice should include a description reporting the jCard 413 deprecation end time and two links: 415 o "deprecation": a link to a URI-identified resource documenting the 416 jCard deprecation; 418 o "alternate": if jCard is not requested, a link to the jCard 419 version of the same resource as identified by the current query 420 string plus the parameter "jcard" set to 1/true/yes (Figure 4); 421 otherwise, a link to the JSCard version of the same resource as 422 identified by the current query string without the parameter 423 "jcard" (Figure 5). 425 "notices": [ 426 { 427 "title": "jCard deprecation end", 428 "description": ["2020-12-31T23:59:59Z"], 429 "links": [ 430 { 431 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 432 "rel": "deprecation", 433 "type": "text/html", 434 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 435 }, 436 { 437 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX", 438 "rel": "alternate", 439 "type": "application/rdap+json", 440 "href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1" 441 } 442 ] 443 } 444 ] 446 Figure 4: jCard deprecation - jCard not requested 448 "notices": [ 449 { 450 "title": "jCard deprecation end", 451 "description": ["2020-12-31T23:59:59Z"], 452 "links": [ 453 { 454 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1", 455 "rel": "deprecation", 456 "type": "text/html", 457 "href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html" 458 }, 459 { 460 "value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1", 461 "rel": "alternate", 462 "type": "application/rdap+json", 463 "href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX" 464 } 465 ] 466 } 467 ] 469 Figure 5: jCard deprecation - jCard requested 471 4.2.1.4. Stage 4: jCard deprecated 473 This stage corresponds to providing JSCard as default contact card. 474 The RDAP server is not able to provide an alternate contact card. 475 The rdapConformance array always contains "jscard" tag. The RDAP 476 server doesn't include any notice about the jCard deprecation 477 process. Both "jscard" and "jcard" query parameters are ignored. 479 4.2.1.5. Length 481 The length of both jCard sunset and jCard deprecation periods are not 482 fixed by this specification. Best practices in REST API deprecation 483 suggest that, depending on the deprecated API's reach, user base and 484 service offering, a convenient time could be anywhere between 3 - 8 485 months. Anyway, RDAP providers are recommended to monitor the server 486 log to figure out whether declared times need to be changed to meet 487 client requirements. 489 4.2.1.6. Goals 491 The procedure described in this document achieves the following 492 goals: 494 o only one contact representation would be included in the response; 495 o the response would always be compliant to [RFC7483]; 497 o clients would be informed about the transition timeline; 499 o the backward compatibility would be guaranteed throughout the 500 transition; 502 o servers and clients could execute their transitions independently. 504 5. Implementation Status 506 NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior 507 to publication as an RFC. 509 This section records the status of known implementations of the 510 protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this 511 Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in RFC 7942 512 [RFC7942]. The description of implementations in this section is 513 intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing 514 drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual 515 implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. 516 Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information 517 presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not 518 intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available 519 implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that 520 other implementations may exist. 522 According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups 523 to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of 524 running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation 525 and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. 526 It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as 527 they see fit". 529 5.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it 531 Responsible Organization: Institute of Informatics and Telematics 532 of National Research Council (IIT-CNR)/Registro.it 534 Location: https://rdap.pubtest.nic.it/ 536 Description: This implementation includes support for RDAP queries 537 using data from the public test environment of .it ccTLD. 539 Level of Maturity: This is a "proof of concept" research 540 implementation. 542 Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features 543 described in this specification. 545 Contact Information: Mario Loffredo, mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it 547 6. IANA Considerations 549 IANA is requested to register the following values in the RDAP 550 Extensions Registry: 552 Extension identifier: jscard 554 Registry operator: Any 556 Published specification: This document. 558 Contact: IETF 560 Intended usage: This extension represents a contact card provided 561 in an RDAP response according to the JSContact specification 562 ([draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact]). 564 7. Security Considerations 566 Unlike jCard, the formatted name as well as any other personally 567 identifiable information is not required in JSCard. The only 568 mandatory property, namely "uid", is usually an opaque string. 569 Therefore, redacted properties can be merely excluded without using 570 placeholder values. 572 8. References 574 8.1. Normative References 576 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 577 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 578 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 579 . 581 [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: 582 Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, 583 . 585 [RFC6350] Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350, 586 DOI 10.17487/RFC6350, August 2011, 587 . 589 [RFC7095] Kewisch, P., "jCard: The JSON Format for vCard", RFC 7095, 590 DOI 10.17487/RFC7095, January 2014, 591 . 593 [RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access 594 Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, 595 DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015, 596 . 598 [RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the 599 Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483, 600 DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015, 601 . 603 [RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running 604 Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205, 605 RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016, 606 . 608 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 609 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 610 May 2017, . 612 [RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288, 613 DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017, 614 . 616 8.2. Informative References 618 [API-DEPRECATION] 619 Sandoval, K., "How to Smartly Sunset and Deprecate APIs", 620 August 2019, . 624 [draft-ietf-httpapi-deprecation-header] 625 Dalal, S. and E. Wilde, "The Deprecation HTTP Header 626 Field", . 629 [draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact] 630 Stepanek, R. and M. Loffredo, "JSContact: A JSON 631 representation of contact data", 632 . 635 [draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact-vcard] 636 Loffredo, M. and R. Stepanek, "JSContact: Converting from 637 and to vCard", . 640 [RDAP-PILOT-WG] 641 ICANN RDAP Pilot WG, "RDAP Pilot Report", April 2019, 642 . 645 Appendix A. Change Log 647 A.1. Change from 00 to 01 649 1. Changed category from "Best Current Practice" to "Standards 650 Track" 652 2. Replaced the example of Figure 1 654 3. Changed the title of the "Migration from JCard to JSCard" 655 section to "Transition Considerations" 657 4. Added Section 3.1 659 5. Updated Section 6 661 6. Updated Section 7 663 7. Rearranged the description of stage 1 in Section 4.2.1 665 8. Changed the names of the transition stages 1 and 2 667 9. Corrected Figure 2, Figure 4, Figure 5 669 10. Changed the rdapConformance tag "jscard_level_0" to "jscard" 671 11. Removed the "Best Practices for deprecating a REST API features" 672 section, but added a useful reference. 674 A.2. Change from 01 to 02 676 1. Removed the sentence "which cannot be represented using jCard" in 677 Section 1.1. 679 A.3. Change from 02 to 03 681 1. Updated section "Conventions Used in This Document". 683 2. Updated the contact in "IANA Considerations" section. 685 3. Changed the reference draft-loffredo-jmap-jscontact-vcard to 686 draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact-vcard. 688 4. Added reference to RFC8174. 690 5. Other minor edits. 692 A.4. Change from 03 to 04 694 1. Updated the reference draft-dalal-deprecation-header to draft- 695 ietf-httpapi-deprecation-header. 697 Authors' Addresses 699 Mario Loffredo 700 IIT-CNR/Registro.it 701 Via Moruzzi,1 702 Pisa 56124 703 IT 705 Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it 706 URI: http://www.iit.cnr.it 708 Gavin Brown 709 CentralNic Group plc 710 Saddlers House, 44 Gutter Lane 711 London, England EC2V 6BR 712 GB 714 Phone: +44 20 33 88 0600 715 Email: gavin.brown@centralnic.com 716 URI: https://www.centralnic.com