An RDAP Extension for Geofeed Data
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-08

Registration Protocols Extensions (regext)                      J. Singh
Internet-Draft                                                      ARIN
Intended status: Standards Track                             T. Harrison
Expires: 21 April 2025                                             APNIC
                                                         18 October 2024

                   An RDAP Extension for Geofeed Data
                   draft-ietf-regext-rdap-geofeed-08

Abstract

   This document defines a new Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
   extension, "geofeed1", for indicating that an RDAP server hosts
   geofeed URLs for its IP network objects.  It also defines a new media
   type and link relation type for the associated link objects included
   in responses.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 21 April 2025.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Singh & Harrison          Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                rdap-geofeed                  October 2024

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Media Type for a Geofeed Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Geofeed Link  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.3.  Extension Identifier  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.4.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.1.  RDAP Extensions Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  Link Relations Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.3.  Media Types Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.4.  Structured Syntax Suffixes Registry . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.1.  RIPE NCC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Change History  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.1.  Changes from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.2.  Changes from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.3.  Changes from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.4.  Changes from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.5.  Changes from 04 to 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.6.  Changes from 05 to 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.7.  Changes from 06 to 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.8.  Changes from 07 to 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   [RFC8805] and [RFC9632] detail the IP geolocation feed (commonly
   known as 'geofeed') file format and associated access mechanisms.
   This document specifies how geofeed URLs can be accessed through
   RDAP.  It defines a new RDAP extension, "geofeed1", for indicating
   that an RDAP server hosts geofeed URLs for its IP network objects, as
   well as a media type and a link relation type for the associated link
   objects.

Singh & Harrison          Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                rdap-geofeed                  October 2024

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [BCP14] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown
   here.

   Indentation and whitespace in examples are provided only to
   illustrate element relationships, and are not a REQUIRED feature of
   this protocol.

   "..." in examples is used as shorthand for elements defined outside
   of this document.

2.  Specification

2.1.  Media Type for a Geofeed Link

   [RFC9632] requires a geofeed file to be a UTF-8 [RFC3629] comma-
   separated values (CSV) file, with a series of "#" comments at the end
   for the optional Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI, [RFC6480])
   signature.  At first glance, the "text/csv" media type (Section 4 of
   [I-D.shafranovich-rfc4180-bis]) seems like a good candidate for a
   geofeed file, since it supports the "#" comments needed for including
   the RPKI signature.

   However, although the CSV geofeed data could be viewed directly by a
   user such that the "text/csv" media type was appropriate, the most
   common use case will involve it being processed by some sort of
   application first, in order to facilitate subsequent address lookup
   operations.  Therefore, using a new "application" media type with a
   "geofeed" subtype (Section 4.2.5 of [RFC6838]) for the geofeed data
   is preferable to using "text/csv".

   To that end, this document registers a new "application/geofeed+csv"
   media type in the IANA Media Types Registry (see Section 6.3), and a
   new "+csv" suffix in the IANA Structured Syntax Suffixes Registry
   (see Section 6.4).

2.2.  Geofeed Link

   An RDAP server that hosts geofeed URLs for its IP network objects
   (Section 5.4 of [RFC9083]) may include link objects for those geofeed
   URLs in IP network objects in its responses.  These link objects are
   added to the "links" member of each object (Section 4.2 of
   [RFC9083]).

Singh & Harrison          Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                rdap-geofeed                  October 2024

   In RDAP, the "value", "rel", and "href" JSON members are REQUIRED for
   any link object.  Additionally, for a geofeed link object, the "type"
   JSON member is RECOMMENDED.  The geofeed-specific components of a
   link object are like so:

   *  "rel" -- The link relation type is set to "geo".  This is a new
      link relation type for geographical data, registered in the IANA
      Link Relations Registry (see Section 6.2) by this document.
   *  "href" -- The target URL is set to the HTTPS URL of the geofeed
      file for an IP network.
   *  "type" -- "application/geofeed+csv" (see Section 2.1).

   An IP network object returned by an RDAP server may contain zero,
   one, or multiple geofeed link objects.  An example scenario where
   more than one geofeed link object would be returned is where the
   server is able to represent that data in multiple languages (see the
   "hreflang" member of a link object).

2.3.  Extension Identifier

   This document defines a new extension identifier, "geofeed1", for use
   by servers that host geofeed URLs for their IP network objects and
   include geofeed URL link objects in their responses to clients in
   accordance with Section 2.2.  A server that uses this extension
   identifier MUST include it in the "rdapConformance" array for any
   lookup or search response containing an IP network object, as well as
   in the help response.  Here is an elided example for this inclusion:

   {
       "rdapConformance": [ "rdap_level_0", "geofeed1", ... ],
       ...
   }

   An RDAP server may make use of the "application/geofeed+csv" media
   type and the "geo" link relation defined in this specification in its
   responses without including the "geofeed1" extension identifier in
   those responses, because RDAP servers are free to use any registered
   media type or link relation in a standard response (without
   implementing any particular extension).  The additional value of the
   extension identifier here is that it signals to the client that the
   server hosts geofeed URLs for its IP network objects.  This is useful
   where a client receives an IP network object without a geofeed link
   object, because in that case the client can infer that no geofeed
   data is available for that object, since the server would have
   provided it if it were available.

Singh & Harrison          Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                rdap-geofeed                  October 2024

   Although a server may use registered media types in its link objects
   without any restrictions, it may be useful to define new RDAP
   extensions for those media types in order for the server to
   communicate to clients that it will make data for that type
   accessible, in the same way that the server does with the "geofeed1"
   extension identifier.

2.4.  Example

   The following is an elided example of an IP network object with a
   geofeed link object:

   {
       "objectClassName": "ip network",
       "handle": "XXXX-RIR",
       "startAddress": "2001:db8::",
       "endAddress": "2001:db8:0:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff",
       "ipVersion": "v6",
       "name": "NET-RTR-1",
       "type": "DIRECT ALLOCATION",
       "country": "AU",
       "parentHandle": "YYYY-RIR",
       "status": [ "active" ],
       "links":
        [
           {
               "value": "https://example.net/ip/2001:db8::/48",
               "rel": "self",
               "href": "https://example.net/ip/2001:db8::/48",
               "type": "application/rdap+json"
           },
           {
               "value": "https://example.net/ip/2001:db8::/48",
               "rel": "geo",
               "href": "https://example.com/geofeed",
               "type": "application/geofeed+csv"
           },
           ...
       ],
       ...
   }

Singh & Harrison          Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                rdap-geofeed                  October 2024

3.  Operational Considerations

   When an RDAP server is queried for an IP network for a given address
   range, it is required to return the most-specific IP network object
   that covers the address range.  That IP network object may not have
   an associated geofeed link, but it is possible that a less-specific
   IP network object does have such a link.  Clients attempting to
   retrieve geofeed data for a given address range via RDAP should
   consider whether to retrieve the parent object for the initial
   response (and so on, recursively) in the event that the initial
   response does not contain geofeed data.  Conversely, server operators
   should consider interface options for resource holders in order to
   support the provisioning of geofeed links for all networks covered by
   the associated data.

   It is common for a resource holder to maintain a single geofeed file
   containing the geofeed data for all of their resources.  The resource
   holder then updates each of their network object registrations to
   refer to that single geofeed file.  As with geofeed references in
   inetnum objects (per [RFC9632]), clients who find a geofeed link
   object within an IP network object MUST ignore geofeed data from that
   link that is outside the IP network object's address range.

   Section 3.2 of [RFC8805] recommends that consumers of geofeed data
   verify that the publisher of the data is authoritative for the
   relevant resources.  The RDAP bootstrap process ([RFC9224]) helps
   clients with this recommendation, since a client following that
   process will be directed to the RDAP server that is able to make
   authoritative statements about the disposition of the relevant
   resources.

4.  Privacy Considerations

   When including a geofeed file URL in an IP network object, it is
   expected that the service provider publishing the geofeed file has
   followed the guidance from Section 7 of [RFC9632] to not accidentally
   expose the location of an individual.

   Many jurisdictions have laws or regulations that restrict the use of
   "personal data", per the definition in [RFC6973].  Given that,
   registry operators should ascertain whether the regulatory
   environment in which they operate permits implementation of the
   functionality defined in this document.

Singh & Harrison          Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                rdap-geofeed                  October 2024

5.  Security Considerations

   [RFC9632] requires an HTTPS URL for a geofeed file.  The geofeed file
   may also contain an RPKI signature.  Besides that, this document does
   not introduce any new security considerations past those already
   discussed in the RDAP protocol specifications.

6.  IANA Considerations

6.1.  RDAP Extensions Registry

   IANA is requested to register the following value in the RDAP
   Extensions Registry at [RDAP-EXTENSIONS]:

   *  Extension identifier: geofeed1
   *  Registry operator: Any
   *  Published specification: This document.
   *  Contact: IETF, iesg@ietf.org
   *  Intended usage: This extension describes version 1 of a method to
      access the IP geolocation feed data through RDAP.

6.2.  Link Relations Registry

   IANA is requested to register the following value in the Link
   Relations Registry at [LINK-RELATIONS]:

   *  Relation Name: geo
   *  Description: Indicates that the link context has a resource with
      geographic information at the link target.
   *  Reference: This document.

6.3.  Media Types Registry

   IANA is requested to register the following value in the Media Types
   Registry at [MEDIA-TYPES]:

   *  Type name: application
   *  Subtype name: geofeed+csv
   *  Required parameters: N/A
   *  Optional parameters: N/A
   *  Encoding considerations: See Section 2 of [RFC9632].
   *  Security considerations: See Section 5 of this document.
   *  Interoperability considerations: There are no known
      interoperability problems regarding this media format.
   *  Published specification: This document.

Singh & Harrison          Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                rdap-geofeed                  October 2024

   *  Applications that use this media type: Implementations of the
      Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Extension for Geofeed
      Data.  Furthermore, any application that processes the CSV geofeed
      data.
   *  Additional information: This media type is a product of the IETF
      REGEXT Working Group.  The REGEXT charter, information on the
      REGEXT mailing list, and other documents produced by the REGEXT
      Working Group can be found at [REGEXT].
   *  Person & email address to contact for further information: IETF,
      iesg@ietf.org
   *  Intended usage: COMMON
   *  Restrictions on usage: None
   *  Authors: Tom Harrison, Jasdip Singh
   *  Change controller: IETF
   *  Provisional Registration: No

6.4.  Structured Syntax Suffixes Registry

   IANA is requested to register the following value in the Structured
   Syntax Suffixes Registry at [STRUCTURED-SYNTAX-SUFFIXES]:

   *  Name: Comma-Separated Values (CSV)
   *  +suffix: +csv
   *  References: [RFC4180], [RFC7111]
   *  Encoding Considerations: Same as "text/csv".
   *  Interoperability Considerations: Same as "text/csv".
   *  Fragment Identifier Considerations:

   The syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers specified for +csv
   SHOULD be as specified for "text/csv".

   The syntax and semantics for fragment identifiers for a specific
   "xxx/yyy+csv" SHOULD be processed as follows:

   For cases defined in +csv, where the fragment identifier resolves per
   the +csv rules, then as specified in +csv.

   For cases defined in +csv, where the fragment identifier does not
   resolve per the +csv rules, then as specified in "xxx/yyy+csv".

   For cases not defined in +csv, then as specified in "xxx/yyy+csv".

   *  Security Considerations: Same as "text/csv".
   *  Contact: IETF, iesg@ietf.org

Singh & Harrison          Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                rdap-geofeed                  October 2024

7.  Implementation Status

   NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior
   to publication as an RFC.

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to
   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
   here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort
   has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
   supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not
   be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
   exist.

   According to RFC 7942, "this will allow reviewers and working groups
   to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
   running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
   and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
   they see fit".

7.1.  RIPE NCC

   *  Responsible Organization: RIPE NCC
   *  Location: https://rdap.db.ripe.net (https://rdap.db.ripe.net)
   *  Description: An RDAP server returning geofeed data.
   *  Level of Maturity: This is a production implementation.
   *  Coverage: This implementation covers all the features described in
      this specification.
   *  Contact Information: Ed Shryane, eshryane@ripe.net

8.  Acknowledgements

   Mark Kosters provided initial support and encouragement for this
   work, along with the [RFC9632] authors.  Gavin Brown suggested using
   a web link instead of a simple URL string to specify a geofeed file
   URL.  Andy Newton, James Gould, Scott Hollenbeck, and Mario Loffredo
   also provided valuable feedback for this document.

9.  Change History

   (Remove this section before publication.)

Singh & Harrison          Expires 21 April 2025                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                rdap-geofeed                  October 2024

9.1.  Changes from 00 to 01

   *  Now using a web link instead of a simple URL string to specify a
      geofeed file URL.
   *  Renamed the extension as "geofeed1" instead of "geofeedv1".
   *  Introduced the new "geo" link relation type.
   *  Introduced the new "application/geofeed+csv" media type.

9.2.  Changes from 01 to 02

   *  Updated the "Requirements Language" section for examples.
   *  Added an example for RDAP conformance.
   *  Updated the rationale for using the new "application/geofeed+csv"
      media type.
   *  Updated the "Applications that use this media type" section for
      the "application/geofeed+csv" registration.

9.3.  Changes from 02 to 03

   *  Removed "value" and "hreflang" explanations from the "Geofeed
      Link" section.  Further, clarified the cardinality of geofeed link
      objects.
   *  Updated extensibility verbiage in the "Media Type for a Geofeed
      Link" section.
   *  In the "Example" section, updated the domain in "href" of the
      geofeed link object to contrast with the domain in "value" to
      highlight that "href" is for a geofeed file hosted at a network
      operator site whereas "value" is for an IP network object from an
      RDAP server.
   *  Removed the "Redaction" section since the geofeed files are public
      to start with.
   *  Added URLs for various IANA registries.

9.4.  Changes from 03 to 04

   *  Updated the criteria for including the extension identifier in
      "rdapConformance".

9.5.  Changes from 04 to 05

   *  Made various editorial changes.

9.6.  Changes from 05 to 06

   *  The extension identifier inclusion is now a must.
   *  Added the "Operational Considerations" section to clarify the
      geofeed file and IP networks relationship, as well as how RDAP
      Bootstrap helps with a recommendation from RFC 8805.

Singh & Harrison          Expires 21 April 2025                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                rdap-geofeed                  October 2024

   *  Updated the "Privacy Considerations" section to clarify the
      service provider responsibility.

9.7.  Changes from 06 to 07

   *  Updated the extension identifier text so as to clarify that the
      media type and link relation can be used independently of that
      identifier.

9.8.  Changes from 07 to 08

   *  Added the "Implementation Status" section.
   *  Updated references.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [BCP14]    Best Current Practice 14,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp14>.
              At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:

              Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

              Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
              2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.

   [RFC9083]  Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "JSON Responses for the
              Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", STD 95,
              RFC 9083, DOI 10.17487/RFC9083, June 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9083>.

   [RFC9224]  Blanchet, M., "Finding the Authoritative Registration Data
              Access Protocol (RDAP) Service", STD 95, RFC 9224,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9224, March 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9224>.

Singh & Harrison          Expires 21 April 2025                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                rdap-geofeed                  October 2024

   [RFC9632]  Bush, R., Candela, M., Kumari, W., and R. Housley,
              "Finding and Using Geofeed Data", RFC 9632,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9632, August 2024,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9632>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.shafranovich-rfc4180-bis]
              Shafranovich, Y., "Common Format and MIME Type for Comma-
              Separated Values (CSV) Files", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-shafranovich-rfc4180-bis-07, 2 August 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-shafranovich-
              rfc4180-bis-07>.

   [LINK-RELATIONS]
              IANA, "Link Relations",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/>.

   [MEDIA-TYPES]
              IANA, "Media Types",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/>.

   [RDAP-EXTENSIONS]
              IANA, "RDAP Extensions",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions/>.

   [REGEXT]   IETF, "Registration Protocols Extensions",
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/regext/>.

   [RFC4180]  Shafranovich, Y., "Common Format and MIME Type for Comma-
              Separated Values (CSV) Files", RFC 4180,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4180, October 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4180>.

   [RFC6480]  Lepinski, M. and S. Kent, "An Infrastructure to Support
              Secure Internet Routing", RFC 6480, DOI 10.17487/RFC6480,
              February 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6480>.

   [RFC6838]  Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
              Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
              RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.

Singh & Harrison          Expires 21 April 2025                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                rdap-geofeed                  October 2024

   [RFC7111]  Hausenblas, M., Wilde, E., and J. Tennison, "URI Fragment
              Identifiers for the text/csv Media Type", RFC 7111,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7111, January 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7111>.

   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.

   [RFC8805]  Kline, E., Duleba, K., Szamonek, Z., Moser, S., and W.
              Kumari, "A Format for Self-Published IP Geolocation
              Feeds", RFC 8805, DOI 10.17487/RFC8805, August 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8805>.

   [STRUCTURED-SYNTAX-SUFFIXES]
              IANA, "Structured Syntax Suffixes",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-type-structured-
              suffix/>.

Authors' Addresses

   Jasdip Singh
   ARIN
   Email: jasdips@arin.net

   Tom Harrison
   APNIC
   Email: tomh@apnic.net

Singh & Harrison          Expires 21 April 2025                [Page 13]