Using JSContact in Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) JSON Responses
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-26
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mario Loffredo , Gavin Brown | ||
| Last updated | 2026-08-27 (Latest revision 2026-04-30) | ||
| Replaces | draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-jcard-deprecation | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | Jasdip Singh | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | jasdips@arin.net |
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-26
Registration Protocols Extensions M. Loffredo
Internet-Draft IIT-CNR/Registro.it
Intended status: Standards Track G. Brown
Expires: 28 February 2027 ICANN
27 August 2026
Using JSContact in Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) JSON
Responses
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-26
Abstract
This document describes an RDAP extension which represents entity
contact information in JSON responses using JSContact.
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 28 February 2027.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 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.
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. JSContact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Using JSContact in RDAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. JSContact Profile for RDAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Extension Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. Extension Version Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.3. Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.4. Kind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.5. Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.6. Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.7. Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.8. Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.9. Emails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.10. Phones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.11. Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.12. Map Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.13. Localizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.14. Profile Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.15. Example of using JSContact in RDAP response . . . . . 11
3.2. Request for JSContact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3. Reverse Search Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Transition Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1. RDAP Features Supporting the Transition Process . . . . . 15
4.2. Transition Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.1. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.2. Transition Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.2.1. Stage 1: only jCard provided . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.2.2. Stage 2: jCard sunset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.2.3. Stage 3: jCard deprecation . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2.2.4. Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it RDAP Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2. IIT-CNR/Registro.it RDAP Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.3. client.rdap.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.4. CentralNic Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.5. ICANN RDAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.1. RDAP Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2. RDAP JSON Values Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3. RDAP Reverse Search Mapping Registry . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.4. JSContact Profile Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.1. Representation Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.2. rdapConformance Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
7.3. Data Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.4. Transition Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.5. Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.6. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.7. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7.8. Operational Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix A. jCard-JSContact Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
B.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
B.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
B.3. Change from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
B.4. Change from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
B.5. Initial WG version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
B.6. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
B.7. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
B.8. Change from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
B.9. Change from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
B.10. Change from 04 to 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
B.11. Change from 05 to 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
B.12. Change from 06 to 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
B.13. Change from 07 to 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
B.14. Change from 08 to 09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
B.15. Change from 09 to 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
B.16. Change from 10 to 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
B.17. Change from 11 to 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
B.18. Change from 12 to 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
B.19. Change from 13 to 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
B.20. Change from 14 to 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
B.21. Change from 15 to 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
B.22. Change from 16 to 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
B.23. Change from 17 to 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
B.24. Change from 18 to 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
B.25. Change from 19 to 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
B.26. Change from 20 to 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
B.27. Change from 21 to 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.28. Change from 22 to 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.29. Change from 23 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.30. Change from 24 to 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.31. Change from 25 to 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
1. Introduction
This document specifies an extension to the Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) that allows RDAP servers to use JSContact [RFC9553]
to represent the contact information associated with entities in RDAP
responses, instead of jCard [RFC7095]. It also describes the process
by which an RDAP server can transition from jCard to JSContact. RDAP
query and response extensions are defined to facilitate the
transition process.
1.1. Rationale
According to the feedback from RDAP Pilot Working Group
[RDAP-PILOT-WG], a group of RDAP server implementers representing
registries and registrars of generic TLDs, the most commonly raised
implementation concern for both servers and client implementers, was
related to the use of jCard [RFC7095] to represent the contact
information associated with entities. Working Group members reported
jCard to be unintuitive, complicated to implement for both clients
and servers, and incompatible with best practices for RESTful APIs.
JSContact [RFC9553] provides a simpler and more efficient
representation for contact information with regard to time and effort
saved in processing it. In addition, similarly to jCard, it provides
a means to represent internationalized and unstructured contact
information. Support for internationalized contact information has
been recognized as necessary to facilitate the future
internationalisation of registration data directory services.
1.2. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "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 BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. JSContact
The JSContact specification defines a data model and JSON
representation of contact information that can be used for data
storage and exchange in address book or directory applications. It
aims to be an alternative to the vCard data format [RFC6350] and to
be unambiguous, extendable and simple to process. In contrast with
jCard, it is not a direct mapping from the vCard data model and
expands semantics where appropriate.
JSContact differs from jCard in that it:
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
* follows an object-oriented rather than array-oriented approach;
* is simple to process;
* requires no extra work in serialization/deserialization from/to a
data model;
* includes no "jagged" arrays;
* prefers maps rather than arrays to implement collections.
[RFC9555] provides guidance on the conversion of jCard into
JSContact, and vice versa. Appendix A shows JSContact counterparts
for the most commonly used jCard properties in an RDAP response.
3. Using JSContact in RDAP
3.1. JSContact Profile for RDAP
Since JSContact is a generalized representation of contact data, many
of its capabilities are not optimized for use in RDAP responses.
This document defines a usage profile for JSContact that simplifies
the implementation for both clients and servers. The JSContact
profile for RDAP is compliant with the rules described in
[I-D.ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles]. The profile properties are
formally listed in Section 3.1.14. The information required to
register the profile is described in Section 6.4.
All types mentioned in this section refer to the JSContact
specification [RFC9553] (e.g., Card is the JSContact Card type).
3.1.1. Extension Identifier
An entity object in an RDAP response MAY contain a "jscontact_card"
member whose value is a Card object. The "jscontact_card" member
provides the contact information that would otherwise be represented
by the "vcardArray" member defined in [RFC9083].
An entity object MUST NOT contain both the "jscontact_card" and
"vcardArray" members. If contact information is included in an
entity object, it MUST be represented using no more than one of these
members.
Within a single RDAP response, the server MUST use the same contact
representation for all entity objects that contain contact
information. Consequently, a response MUST NOT contain a
"jscontact_card" member in one entity object and a "vcardArray"
member in another entity object. Entity objects for which no contact
information is available MAY omit both members.
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
An RDAP response containing one or more "jscontact_card" members MUST
include the "jscontact" extension identifier in the "rdapConformance"
array. Additional requirements concerning the inclusion of this
identifier in help responses and during the transition from jCard to
JSContact are specified in Section 4.2.2.
3.1.2. Extension Version Identifier
Note to RFC Editor: Please replace "jscontact-0.4" with "jscontact-
1.0" before publication.
This extension uses the Point Versioning defined in
[I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-versioning] with a Point Extension Version
Identifier of "jscontact-0.4". Clients and servers implementing this
extension MUST also support and implement
[I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-versioning]. When there are interface changes
to the extension, the Point Extension Version Identifier will be
incremented, which may not match the draft version number. The
initial Standards Track version of this extension will use the Point
Extension Version Identifier "jscontact-1.0".
3.1.3. Version
The Card "version" member MUST have the value "2.0".
The information required to register the Card "version" member value
in the "RDAP JSON Values" registry [RFC9083] is provided in
Section 6.2.
3.1.4. Kind
The Card "kind" member value MUST be "individual" (default) or "org"
to represent an individual or an organization, respectively.
3.1.5. Language
The Card "language" member SHOULD be set when localizations are
specified (i.e. the "localizations" member is present and non-empty).
3.1.6. Name
The Card "name" member MUST include the "full" member and MAY include
the "components" member to specify the name components of an
individual.
Other than the optional "@type" member, the NameComponent type MUST
include only the "kind" and "value" members. The "kind" member value
MUST be "given" or "surname".
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
3.1.7. Organizations
Other than the optional "@type" member, the Organization type MUST
include only the "name" member.
3.1.8. Addresses
The Address type MUST include at least one of the "full",
"components" and "countryCode" members.
Other than the optional "@type" member, the AddressComponent type
MUST include only the "kind" and "value" members. The "kind" member
value MUST be "name", "locality", "region", "postcode" or "country".
3.1.9. Emails
Other than the optional "@type" member, the EmailAddress type MUST
include only the "address" member.
3.1.10. Phones
The Phone type MUST include the "number" member and MAY include the
"features" member.
The PhoneFeature type value MUST be "voice" or "fax". When the
"features" member is missing, the phone number is assumed to be a
voice number.
3.1.11. Links
The Link type MUST include the "uri" member and MAY include the
"kind" member. The "kind" member value MUST be "contact".
3.1.12. Map Keys
Since most of the JSContact collections are represented as maps, map
keys must be defined. A JSContact map key MUST comply with the
definition of the Id type (see Section 1.4.1 of [RFC9553]). To aid
interoperability, RDAP providers MUST use the following keys related
to string values and labels defined in [RFC5733]:
* "org" in the "organizations" map when there is a single
<contact:org> element;
* "addr" in the "addresses" map when there is a single
<contact:addr> element;
* "email" in the "emails" map for the <contact:email> element;
* "voice" in the "phones" map for the <contact:voice> element;
* "fax" in the "phones" map for the <contact:fax> element.
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
In cases where both internationalized and localized versions of
organization, postal address, and email exist, the related map MUST
include the internationalized version, while the localized version
MUST be included in the localizations map, as described in
Section 3.1.13.
Additional keys of the "links" map that MUST be used to represent
contact links which result from converting jCard "uri" and "contact-
uri" properties are:
* "url" used for the unique or preferred contact URL (e.g. a web
site). The "kind" member of the Link object MUST NOT be set;
* "contact-uri" used for the contact URI as defined in [RFC8605].
The "kind" member of the Link object MUST be set to "contact".
The information required to register the JSContact Id values in the
"RDAP JSON Values" registry [RFC9083] is described in Section 6.2.
Any additional key used for the above maps SHOULD conform with the
following scheme: "<registered key>-<sequential number>". For
example, a phones map containing three voice numbers would contain
the following keys: "voice", "voice-1", "voice-2".
The keys SHOULD remain stable until the associated contact
information is changed. Gaps in the numbering MAY occur when an
associated map entry is removed, including as a result of redaction.
3.1.13. Localizations
If present, the localized versions of name, organization, postal
address and email MUST be added to the "localizations" map. With
reference to the definition of localization in [RFC9553], an RDAP
response with JSContact content MUST expand all localizations (i.e. a
nested PatchObject key like "{key1}/{key2}/.../{keyN}" is not
allowed). The following is an elided example of an RDAP entity
lookup response including a Card that includes localized version for
name, organization and postal address (See PDF for non-ASCII
character string).
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
...
"jscontact_card": {
"@type": "Card",
"version": "2.0",
"language": "en",
"name": {
"full": "Vasya Pupkin"
},
"organizations": {
"org": {
"name": "My Company"
}
},
"addresses": {
"addr": {
"components": [
{ "kind": "name", "value": "1 Street" },
{ "kind": "locality", "value": "Kyiv" }
],
"countryCode": "UA"
}
},
"localizations": {
"uk": {
"addresses": {
"addr": {
"components": [
{ "kind": "name", "value": "1, Улица" },
{ "kind": "locality", "value": "Київ" }
],
"countryCode": "UA"
}
},
"name": {
"full": "Вася Пупкін"
},
"organizations": {
"org": {
"name": "Моя Компанія"
}
}
}
}
}
...
Figure 1: Example of handling localizations in JSContact
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
3.1.14. Profile Properties
The following entries define properties of the JSContact profile
registered in the JSContact Profile registry as described in
Section 6.4. Entry elements with empty values are omitted:
Property Name language
Property Context Card
Property Name kind
Property Context Card
Restricted Enum Values individual,org
Property Name name
Property Context Card
Property Name full
Property Context Name
Restricted Attributes mandatory
Property Name components
Property Context Name
Property Name kind
Property Context NameComponent
Restricted Enum Values given,surname
Property Name value
Property Context NameComponent
Property Name organizations
Property Context Card
Property Name name
Property Context Organization
Restricted Attributes mandatory
Property Name addresses
Property Context Card
Property Name full
Property Context Address
Property Name countryCode
Property Context Address
Property Name components
Property Context Address
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
Property Name kind
Property Context AddressComponent
Restricted Enum Values name,locality,region,postcode,country
Property Name value
Property Context AddressComponent
Property Name emails
Property Context Card
Property Name address
Property Context EmailAddress
Property Name phones
Property Context Card
Property Name features
Property Context Phone
Restricted Enum Values voice,fax
Property Name number
Property Context Phone
Property Name links
Property Context Card
Property Name kind
Property Context Link
Restricted Enum Values contact
Property Name uri
Property Context Link
Property Name localizations
Property Context Card
Restricted PatchObject yes
To be consistent with what is stated in Section 2.1 of [RFC9083],
clients SHOULD ignore JSContact properties other than these.
3.1.15. Example of using JSContact in RDAP response
The following is an example of an RDAP entity including a Card. For
convenience, this example assumes that the initial Standards Track
versions of the "versioning" and "jscontact" extensions use the Point
Extension Version Identifiers "versioning-1.0" and "jscontact-1.0",
respectively.
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
{
"rdapConformance": [
"rdap_level_0",
"jscontact",
"versioning"
],
"objectClassName": "entity",
"handle":"XXXX",
"jscontact_card":{
"@type": "Card",
"version": "2.0",
"name": {
"full": "Joe User",
"components": [
{ "kind": "given", "value": "Joe" },
{ "kind": "surname", "value": "User" }
]
},
"organizations": {
"org": {
"name": "Org Example"
}
},
"addresses": {
"addr": {
"components": [
{ "kind": "name", "value": "Main Street 1" },
{ "kind": "locality",
"value": "Ludwigshafen am Rhein" },
{ "kind": "region", "value": "Rhineland-Palatinate" },
{ "kind": "postcode", "value": "67067" },
{ "kind": "country", "value": "Germany" }
],
"countryCode": "DE"
},
"addr-1": {
"full": "Somewhere Street 1 Mutterstadt 67112 Germany"
}
},
"phones": {
"voice": {
"number": "tel:+49-1522-3433333"
},
"fax": {
"features": { "fax": true },
"number": "tel:+49-30-901820"
}
},
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
"emails": {
"email": {
"address": "joe.user@example.com"
}
},
"links": {
"url": {
"uri": "https://www.example.com"
},
"contact-uri": {
"kind": "contact",
"uri": "mailto:contact@example.com"
}
}
},
"roles":[ "registrar" ],
"publicIds":[
{
"type":"IANA Registrar ID",
"identifier":"1"
}
],
"links":[
{
"value":"https://example.com/entity/XXXX",
"rel":"self",
"href":"https://example.com/entity/XXXX",
"type" : "application/rdap+json"
}
],
"events":[
{
"eventAction":"registration",
"eventDate":"1990-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
],
"asEventActor":[
{
"eventAction":"last changed",
"eventDate":"1991-12-31T23:59:59Z"
}
],
"versioning_data": [
{
"extension": "rdap_level_0",
"type": "opaque",
"version": "rdap_level_0"
},
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
{
"extension": "versioning",
"type": "point",
"version": "versioning-1.0"
},
{
"extension": "jscontact",
"type": "point",
"version": "jscontact-1.0"
}
]
}
Figure 2: Example of using JSContact in RDAP response
3.2. Request for JSContact
The client MAY request the server to include the "jscontact_card"
member in the RDAP response by using only one of the following HTTP
elements:
* the RDAP media type "versioning_list" parameter as defined in
[I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-versioning];
* the RDAP media type "exts_list" parameter as defined in
[I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type].
A client MUST NOT request JSContact using both mechanisms in the same
request. If a server receives a request that uses both mechanisms,
it MUST process the "versioning_list" parameter and MUST ignore the
"exts_list" parameter for the purpose of selecting the contact
representation.
Their usage in the transition from jCard to JSContact is further
explained in Section 4.2.2.2.
3.3. Reverse Search Properties
The use of JSContact updates the mappings of two reverse search
properties, namely "fn" and "email", defined in [RFC9536]. Such new
mappings are registered in the Reverse Search Mapping registry as
described in Section 6.3.
4. Transition Considerations
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
4.1. RDAP Features Supporting the Transition Process
RDAP allows servers to communicate service information to clients
through notices. According to Section 4.3 of [RFC9083], an RDAP
response may contain one or more notice objects. Each notice may
include a set of link objects, which can be used to provide clients
with references. These link objects may have a "rel" member which
defines the relationship between resources, as described in Section 4
of [RFC8288]. The transition process outlined in this document uses
the "alternate" link relation type.
The information about the specifications used in the construction of
the response is also described by the strings that appear in the
"rdapConformance" array of the RDAP response.
4.2. Transition Procedure
The transition procedure consists of three contiguous stages. During
the procedure, the presence of the string "jscontact" in the
"rdapConformance" array indicates that JSContact is returned instead
of jCard. The date and time format used to notify clients about the
stages of this procedure is defined in [RFC3339].
4.2.1. Goals
The procedure described in this document aims to achieve the
following goals:
* only one contact representation is included in the response;
* the response always conforms to [RFC9083] because:
- since the "jscontact_card" member is a response extension, its
presence is signaled by the string "jscontact" in the
"rdapConformance" array;
- since the "vcardArray" member is optional in a response, its
absence is allowed;
* clients are informed about the transition timeline;
* backward compatibility is maintained throughout the transition;
* servers and clients can perform their transitions independently.
4.2.2. Transition Stages
4.2.2.1. Stage 1: only jCard provided
This stage corresponds to providing jCard as the default contact card
[RFC9083]. The RDAP server is not able to provide an alternate
format for contacts. The "rdapConformance" array MUST NOT contain
the string "jscontact".
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
4.2.2.2. Stage 2: jCard sunset
During this stage, the server returns jCard by default, but the RDAP
server will return JSContact if the client requests it through one of
the methods described in Section 3.2. The "rdapConformance" array
MUST contain the string "jscontact" if JSContact is returned.
From this stage onward, the RDAP server MUST include the string
"jscontact" in the "rdapConformance" array of the help response to
signal clients that JSContact can be returned instead of jCard.
If JSContact is not requested, the RDAP server SHOULD include a
notice whose type member is set to "jCard sunset end". This notice
contains a description that reports the jCard sunset end date and
time, and an OPTIONAL link to the corresponding JSContact-based
response requested via the method used by the client to negotiate
extensions (Section 3.2). If neither method was used, the RDAP
server includes links for both methods (Figure 3).
"notices": [
{
"type": "jCard sunset end",
"description": ["2030-12-31T23:59:59Z"],
"links": [
{
"value": "https://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel": "alternate",
"type":
"application/rdap+json;versioning_list=\"jscontact-0.4\"",
"href": "https://example.net/entity/XXXX"
},
{
"value": "https://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel": "alternate",
"type":
"application/rdap+json;exts_list=\"rdap_level_0 jscontact\"",
"href": "https://example.net/entity/XXXX"
}
]
}
]
Figure 3: jCard sunset - JSContact not requested
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
4.2.2.3. Stage 3: jCard deprecation
This stage corresponds to providing JSContact as the default format
for contact data. The "rdapConformance" array always contains the
string "jscontact". Any request for JSContact made through a
mechanism described in Section 3.2 MUST NOT affect representation
selection; the server MUST return JSContact.
The RDAP server MUST include the string "noJcard" in the
"rdapConformance" array of the help response to signal clients that
jCard is no longer returned.
The RDAP server SHOULD also include a notice whose type member is set
to "jCard deprecation" whose description reports the verbatim string
"jCard has been deprecated" (Figure 4).
"notices": [
{
"type": "jCard deprecation",
"description": ["jCard has been deprecated"]
}
]
Figure 4: jCard deprecation - jCard has been deprecated
4.2.2.4. Length
The length of the jCard sunset period is not fixed by this
specification. However, RDAP providers are RECOMMENDED to monitor
the server logs to determine whether the declared time needs to be
changed to meet client requirements.
5. Implementation Status
NOTE: Please remove this section and the reference to RFC 7942 prior
to publication as an RFC.
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
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 RFC 7942
[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".
5.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it RDAP Server
* Responsible Organization: Institute of Informatics and Telematics
of National Research Council (IIT-CNR)/Registro.it
* Location: https://rdap.pubtest.nic.it/
* Description: This implementation includes support for RDAP queries
using data from the public test environment of .it ccTLD.
* Level of Maturity: This is an "alpha" test implementation.
* Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features
described in this specification.
* Contact Information: Mario Loffredo, mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it
5.2. IIT-CNR/Registro.it RDAP Client
* Responsible Organization: Institute of Informatics and Telematics
of National Research Council (IIT-CNR)/Registro.it
* Location: https://web-rdap.pubtest.nic.it/
* Description: This is a JavaScript web-based RDAP client. RDAP
responses are retrieved from RDAP servers by the browser, parsed
into an HTML representation, and displayed in a format improving
the user experience. RDAP responses containing JSContact objects
are handled identically to those containing jCard objects. Raw
versions of RDAP responses including either jCard or JSContact
objects are provided.
* Level of Maturity: This is an "alpha" test implementation.
* Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features
described in this specification.
* Contact Information: Francesco Donini, francesco.donini@iit.cnr.it
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
5.3. client.rdap.org
* Location: https://client.rdap.org/
* Description: This is a web-based "single page" RDAP client. RDAP
responses are retrieved from RDAP servers by the browser, and
parsed into an HTML representation. RDAP responses containing
JSContact objects are handled identically to those containing
jCard objects.
* Level of Maturity: This is an "alpha" test implementation.
* Coverage: This implementation implements client support for
parsing JSContact objects in RDAP responses.
* Contact Information: Gavin Brown, feedback@rdap.org
5.4. CentralNic Registry
* Responsible Organization: CentralNic Group PLC
* Location: https://rdap.centralnic.com/{tld}
* Description: This server is the product RDAP service for all top-
level domains on the CentralNic registry platform.
* Level of Maturity: Production quality.
* Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features
described in this specification.
* Contact Information: support@centralnic.com
5.5. ICANN RDAP
* Responsible Organization: ICANN
* Location: https://github.com/icann/icann-rdap
* Description: ICANN RDAP contains an RDAP client, server, and
common libraries.
* Level of Maturity: Mature.
* Coverage: This implementation includes all the features described
in this specification, except support for Point Versioning and the
provision of reverse search mapping.
* Contact Information: globalsupport@icann.org
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. RDAP Extensions Registry
IANA is requested to register the following values in the RDAP
Extensions Registry [IANA.rdap-extensions]:
* Extension identifier: jscontact
* Registry operator: Any
* Published specification: This document.
* Contact: IETF <iesg@ietf.org>
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
* Intended usage: This extension identifier is used as prefix for
the "jscontact_card" member returned in the JSON response
[RFC9553].
* Extension identifier: noJcard
* Registry operator: Any
* Published specification: This document.
* Contact: IETF <iesg@ietf.org>
* Intended usage: This extension identifier is used by the server to
signal clients that jCard is no longer returned.
6.2. RDAP JSON Values Registry
IANA is requested to add the following entries to the RDAP JSON
Values Registry [IANA.rdap-json-values]. The registrations introduce
the new Type values "JSContact version value" and "JSContact Id
value".
Value: jCard sunset end
Type: notice and remark type
Description: This notice signals clients that JSContact can be
returned upon request.
Registrant Name: IETF
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Reference: This document
Value: jCard deprecation
Type: notice and remark type
Description: This notice signals clients that jCard is no longer
returned.
Registrant Name: IETF
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Reference: This document
Value: 2.0
Type: JSContact version value
Description: The JSContact version [RFC9982] to use in implementing
this specification.
Registrant Name: IETF
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Reference: This document
Value: org
Type: JSContact Id value
Description: The key in the JSContact "organizations" map
identifying the contact organization.
Registrant Name: IETF
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
Reference: This document
Value: addr
Type: JSContact Id value
Description: The key in the JSContact "addresses" map identifying
the unique or preferred contact postal address.
Registrant Name: IETF
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Reference: This document
Value: email
Type: JSContact Id value
Description: The key in the JSContact "emails" map identifying the
unique or preferred contact email address.
Registrant Name: IETF
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Reference: This document
Value: voice
Type: JSContact Id value
Description: The key in the JSContact "phones" map identifying the
unique or preferred contact voice number.
Registrant Name: IETF
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Reference: This document
Value: fax
Type: JSContact Id value
Description: The key in the JSContact "phones" map identifying the
unique or preferred contact fax number.
Registrant Name: IETF
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Reference: This document
Value: url
Type: JSContact Id value
Description: The key in the JSContact "links" map identifying the
unique or preferred URL.
Registrant Name: IETF
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Reference: This document
Value: contact-uri
Type: JSContact Id value
Description: The key in the JSContact "links" map identifying the
contact URI as defined in [RFC8605].
Registrant Name: IETF
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
Reference: This document
6.3. RDAP Reverse Search Mapping Registry
IANA is requested to register the following entries in the RDAP
Reverse Search Mapping Registry [IANA.rdap-reverse-search-mapping]:
Searchable Resource Type: domains, nameservers, entities, ips,
autnums
Related Resource Type: entity
Property: fn
Property Path: $.entities[*].jscontact_card.name.full
Registrant Name: IETF
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Reference: This document
Searchable Resource Type: domains, nameservers, entities, ips,
autnums
Related Resource Type: entity
Property: fn
Property Path:
$.entities[*].jscontact_card.localizations.*.name.full
Registrant Name: IETF
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Reference: This document
Searchable Resource Type: domains, nameservers, entities
Related Resource Type: entity
Property: email
Property Path: $.entities[*].jscontact_card.emails.*.address
Registrant Name: IETF
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Reference: This document
Searchable Resource Type: domains, nameservers, entities
Related Resource Type: entity
Property: email
Property Path:
$.entities[*].jscontact_card.localizations.*.emails.*.address
Registrant Name: IETF
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
Reference: This document
6.4. JSContact Profile Registry
IANA is requested to register the following entry in the "JSContact
Profile" registry [I-D.ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles]:
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
Name: rdap
Version: 1
Reference: Section 3.1.14 of this document
7. Operational Considerations
This section describes operational considerations for deploying
JSContact in RDAP, taking into account the request mechanisms defined
in Section 3.2 and the transition approach described in Section 4.
7.1. Representation Selection
As described in Section 3.2, clients can request the "jscontact_card"
member using either the RDAP media type "versioning_list" or
"exts_list" parameters.
Servers are expected to return a representation that is consistent
with both the client request and the applicable transition stage
defined in Section 4.2.2.
In particular, jCard is returned in Stage 1, jCard is the default in
Stage 2 with JSContact available upon request, and JSContact is the
only representation returned in Stage 3.
If a request for JSContact cannot be satisfied (e.g., due to
unsupported or unknown extension parameters), the request is
processed according to general RDAP behavior, and the default
representation is returned.
7.2. rdapConformance Signaling
The "rdapConformance" array provides an indication of the
representation used, as described in Section 3.1.1 and Section 4.2.
Servers are expected to ensure that the presence or absence of the
"jscontact" identifier accurately reflects the response content and
is consistent across all endpoints, including help responses as
required in Section 4.2.2.2 and Section 4.2.2.3.
7.3. Data Consistency
JSContact and jCard represent the same information in different ways.
As described in Appendix A, mapping between the two formats is not
always structurally equivalent.
Operators should ensure that both representations are derived from a
consistent data source and that the semantic meaning of the data is
preserved, even when structural differences exist.
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
Particular attention may be needed for localized data
(Section 3.1.13) and for the use of map keys (Section 3.1.12), to
avoid inconsistencies.
7.4. Transition Monitoring
As stated in Section 4.2.2.4, the duration of the transition is not
fixed.
Operators are encouraged to monitor service usage (e.g., server logs)
to assess client adoption of JSContact and to determine whether
adjustments to the transition timeline are appropriate.
7.5. Caching
During Stage 2, different representations of the same RDAP resource
can be returned depending on the RDAP media type parameters included
in the Accept header field. Servers MUST therefore include "Accept"
in the Vary response header field as defined in [RFC9110] when
representation selection depends on that field.
Servers SHOULD ensure that the freshness lifetime of a cached
response does not extend beyond the announced jCard sunset end date.
If the caching infrastructure cannot reliably distinguish responses
based on the Accept header field, servers SHOULD prevent their
storage by using an appropriate Cache-Control directive, such as "no-
store".
7.6. Error Handling
Error handling follows the general RDAP principles defined in
[RFC9083] and the extension versioning behavior described in
Section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-versioning] and Section 3 of
[I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type].
In particular, requests for unsupported or unknown extensions or
extension versions do not result in an error response and are instead
ignored.
If a request for JSContact cannot be satisfied, the server behavior
is determined by the applicable transition stage defined in
Section 4.2.2. In Stage 2, the server returns the default
representation (jCard), while in Stage 3 JSContact is always
returned.
More generally, when extension negotiation does not succeed, servers
may return the default representation in accordance with RDAP
specifications.
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
7.7. Interoperability
Interoperability issues may arise during the transition due to
differences in client support for request mechanisms (Section 3.2) or
interpretation of rdapConformance signaling and notices
(Section 4.1).
Testing with multiple client implementations can help identify and
mitigate such issues.
7.8. Operational Resilience
The transition procedure described in Section 4.2 allows servers and
clients to evolve independently.
Operators may adjust deployment strategies, including the duration of
transition stages, based on operational experience and client
behavior.
8. Privacy Considerations
In vCard, and consequently in jCard, the FN property is mandatory.
In contrast, JSContact does not require a Card to contain the "name"
property or other properties containing personally identifiable
information. In addition, JSContact version 2.0 [RFC9982] makes the
"uid" property optional. Consequently, the Removal Method defined in
[RFC9537] can be used to redact such properties from an RDAP
JSContact Card.
9. Security Considerations
The security considerations of [RFC9083], [RFC9553], and the
extension negotiation mechanisms referenced in Section 3.2 apply.
During Stage 2, servers can produce different representations of the
same contact information. Servers MUST apply equivalent access
control, redaction, and data-release policies to the jCard and
JSContact representations. Failure to do so could disclose
information that is protected in the other representation.
Servers and intermediaries MUST follow the caching requirements in
Section 7.5 to prevent a representation selected for one request from
being returned in response to a request with different negotiation
parameters. Implementations should also impose appropriate limits on
the size and complexity of JSContact objects and expanded
localizations.
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the following individuals for
their contributions to this document: Jasdip Singh, Andrew Newton,
Marc Blanchet, Rick Wilhelm, Pawel Kowalik and Francesco Donini.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles]
Stepanek, R. and M. Loffredo, "Protocol-Specific Profiles
for JSContact", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles-15, 27 July 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-calext-
jscontact-profiles-15>.
[I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-versioning]
Gould, J., Keathley, D., and M. Loffredo, "Versioning in
the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-regext-rdap-
versioning-07, 31 July 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-
rdap-versioning-07>.
[I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type]
Newton, A. and J. Singh, "The "exts_list" Parameter for
the RDAP Media Type", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-x-media-type-06, 6 July 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-
rdap-x-media-type-06>.
[IANA.rdap-extensions]
IANA, "IANA RDAP Extensions Registry",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-extensions>.
[IANA.rdap-json-values]
IANA, "IANA RDAP JSON Values Registry",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-json-values>.
[IANA.rdap-reverse-search-mapping]
IANA, "IANA RDAP Reverse Search Mapping Registry",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-reverse-search-
mapping>.
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
[RFC2119] 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>.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.
[RFC5733] Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, DOI 10.17487/RFC5733,
August 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5733>.
[RFC6350] Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6350, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6350>.
[RFC7095] Kewisch, P., "jCard: The JSON Format for vCard", RFC 7095,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7095, January 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7095>.
[RFC8174] 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>.
[RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8288>.
[RFC8605] Hollenbeck, S. and R. Carney, "vCard Format Extensions:
ICANN Extensions for the Registration Data Access Protocol
(RDAP)", RFC 8605, DOI 10.17487/RFC8605, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8605>.
[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>.
[RFC9110] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9110>.
[RFC9535] Gössner, S., Ed., Normington, G., Ed., and C. Bormann,
Ed., "JSONPath: Query Expressions for JSON", RFC 9535,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9535, February 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9535>.
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
[RFC9536] Loffredo, M. and M. Martinelli, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Reverse Search", RFC 9536,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9536, April 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9536>.
[RFC9553] Stepanek, R. and M. Loffredo, "JSContact: A JSON
Representation of Contact Data", RFC 9553,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9553, May 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9553>.
[RFC9555] Loffredo, M. and R. Stepanek, "JSContact: Converting from
and to vCard", RFC 9555, DOI 10.17487/RFC9555, May 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9555>.
[RFC9982] Stepanek, R., "JSContact Version 2.0: A JSON
Representation of Contact Data", RFC 9982,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9982, May 2026,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9982>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis]
Claise, B., Clarke, J., Farrel, A., Barguil, S.,
Pignataro, C., and R. Chen, "Guidelines for Considering
Operations and Management in IETF Specifications", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis-06,
12 August 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis-06>.
[RDAP-PILOT-WG]
ICANN RDAP Pilot WG, "RDAP Pilot Report", April 2019,
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rdap-pilot-
report-25apr19-en.pdf>.
[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>.
[RFC8792] Watsen, K., Auerswald, E., Farrel, A., and Q. Wu,
"Handling Long Lines in Content of Internet-Drafts and
RFCs", RFC 8792, DOI 10.17487/RFC8792, June 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8792>.
[RFC9537] Gould, J., Smith, D., Kolker, J., and R. Carney, "Redacted
Fields in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
Response", RFC 9537, DOI 10.17487/RFC9537, March 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9537>.
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
Appendix A. jCard-JSContact Mapping
Provided that the keys defined in Section 3.1.12 are used for the
JSContact maps, the mapping between the most commonly used jCard
properties in an RDAP response and their JSContact counterparts is
shown in the following. The mapping is done through the use of
JSONPath expressions [RFC9535].
For simplicity, the JSONPath expressions for the jCard "tel" property
assume that its "type" parameter has a single value, which is
expected to be the most common case in RDAP responses. A jCard "tel"
property with a multi-valued "type" parameter is valid but is not
covered by these expressions.
Some JSONPath expressions are folded to satisfy the line-length
limitations of this document. The single backslash convention
defined in [RFC8792] is used.
NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792.
jCard property: fn
Reference: Section 6.2.1 of [RFC6350]
Path: $..vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='fn')][3]
JSContact property: Name.full
Reference: Section 2.2.1 of [RFC9553]
Path: $..jscontact_card.name.full
Path: $..jscontact_card.localizations.*.name.full
jCard property: "family name" component of n
Reference: Section 6.2.2 of [RFC6350]
Path: $..vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='n')][3][0]
JSContact property: "surname" NameComponent of Name.components
Reference: Section 2.2.1.2 of [RFC9553]
Path: $..jscontact_card.name.components[?(@.kind=='surname')]\
.value
Path: $..jscontact_card.localizations.*.name.components\
[?(@.kind=='surname')].value
jCard property: "given name" component of n
Reference: Section 6.2.2 of [RFC6350]
Path: $..vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='n')][3][1]
JSContact property: "given" NameComponent of Name.components
Reference: Section 2.2.1.2 of [RFC9553]
Path: $..jscontact_card.name.components[?(@.kind=='given')]\
.value
Path: $..jscontact_card.localizations.*.name.components\
[?(@.kind=='given')].value
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
jCard property: n
Reference: Section 6.2.2 of [RFC6350]
Path: $..vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='n')]
JSContact property: Name
Reference: Section 2.2.1 of [RFC9553]
Path: $..jscontact_card.name
Path: $..jscontact_card.localizations.*.name
jCard property: org
Reference: Section 6.6.4 of [RFC6350]
Path: $..vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='org')][3]
JSContact property: Organization.name
Reference: Section 2.2.3 of [RFC9553]
Path: $..jscontact_card.organizations.org.name
Path: $..jscontact_card.localizations.*.organizations\
.org.name
jCard property: tel with type="voice"
Reference: Section 6.4.1 of [RFC6350]
Path: $..vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='tel' && @[1].type=='voice')][3]
JSContact property: Phone.number
Reference: Section 2.3.3 of [RFC9553]
Path: $..jscontact_card.phones.voice.number
jCard property: tel with type="fax"
Reference: Section 6.4.1 of [RFC6350]
Path: $..vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='tel' && @[1].type=='fax')][3]
JSContact property: Phone.number
Reference: Section 2.3.3 of [RFC9553]
Path: $..jscontact_card.phones.fax.number
jCard property: email
Reference: Section 6.4.2 of [RFC6350]
Path: $..vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='email')][3]
JSContact property: EmailAddress.address
Reference: Section 2.3.1 of [RFC9553]
Path: $..jscontact_card.emails.email.address
Path: $..jscontact_card.localizations.*.emails.email\
.address
jCard property: "label" parameter of adr
Reference: Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6350]
Path: $..vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='adr')][1].label
JSContact property: Address.full
Reference: Section 2.5.1 of [RFC9553]
Path: $..jscontact_card.addresses.addr.full
Path: $..jscontact_card.localizations.*.addresses.addr\
.full
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
jCard property: "street address" component of adr
Reference: Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6350]
Path: $..vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='adr')][3][2]
JSContact property: "name" AddressComponent of Address.components
Reference: Section 2.5.1 of [RFC9553]
Path: $..jscontact_card.addresses.addr.components\
[?(@.kind=='name')].value
Path: $..jscontact_card.localizations.*.addresses.addr\
.components[?(@.kind=='name')].value
jCard property: "locality" component of adr
Reference: Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6350]
Path: $..vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='adr')][3][3]
JSContact property: "locality" AddressComponent of
Address.components
Reference: Section 2.5.1 of [RFC9553]
Path: $..jscontact_card.addresses.addr.components\
[?(@.kind=='locality')].value
Path: $..jscontact_card.localizations.*.addresses.addr\
.components[?(@.kind=='locality')].value
jCard property: "region" component of adr
Reference: Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6350]
Path: $..vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='adr')][3][4]
JSContact property: "region" AddressComponent of Address.components
Reference: Section 2.5.1 of [RFC9553]
Path: $..jscontact_card.addresses.addr.components\
[?(@.kind=='region')].value
Path: $..jscontact_card.localizations.*.addresses.addr\
.components[?(@.kind=='region')].value
jCard property: "postal code" component of adr
Reference: Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6350]
Path: $..vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='adr')][3][5]
JSContact property: "postcode" AddressComponent of
Address.components
Reference: Section 2.5.1 of [RFC9553]
Path: $..jscontact_card.addresses.addr.components\
[?(@.kind=='postcode')].value
Path: $..jscontact_card.localizations.*.addresses.addr\
.components[?(@.kind=='postcode')].value
jCard property: "country name" component of adr
Reference: Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6350]
Path: $..vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='adr')][3][6]
JSContact property: "country" AddressComponent of Address.components
Reference: Section 2.5.1 of [RFC9553]
Path: $..jscontact_card.addresses.addr.components\
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
[?(@.kind=='country')].value
Path: $..jscontact_card.localizations.*.addresses.addr\
.components[?(@.kind=='country')].value
jCard property: "cc" parameter of adr
Reference: Section 3.1 of [RFC8605]
Path: $..vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='adr')][1].cc
JSContact property: Address.countryCode
Reference: Section 2.5.1 of [RFC9553]
Path: $..jscontact_card.addresses.addr.countryCode
Path: $..jscontact_card.localizations.*.addresses.addr\
.countryCode
jCard property: adr
Reference: Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6350]
Path: $..vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='adr')]
JSContact property: Address
Reference: Section 2.5.1 of [RFC9553]
Path: $..jscontact_card.addresses.addr
Path: $..jscontact_card.localizations.*.addresses.addr
jCard property: contact-uri
Reference: Section 2.1 of [RFC8605]
Path: $..vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='contact-uri')][3]
JSContact property: Link.uri
Reference: Section 2.6.3 of [RFC9553]
Path: $..jscontact_card.links.contact-uri.uri
jCard property: url
Reference: Section 6.7.8 of [RFC6350]
Path: $..vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='url')][3]
JSContact property: Link.uri
Reference: Section 2.6.3 of [RFC9553]
Path: $..jscontact_card.links.url.uri
Appendix B. Change Log
B.1. Change from 00 to 01
1. Changed category from "Best Current Practice" to "Standards
Track"
2. Replaced the example of Figure 2
3. Changed the title of the "Migration from JCard to JSCard"
section to "Transition Considerations"
4. Added "Query Parameters" section.
5. Updated Section 6
6. Updated Section 9
7. Rearranged the description of stage 1 in Section 4.2.2
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
8. Changed the names of the transition stages 1 and 2
9. Corrected examples
10. Changed the rdapConformance tag "jscard_level_0" to "jscard"
11. Removed the "Best Practices for deprecating a REST API features"
section, but added a useful reference.
B.2. Change from 01 to 02
1. Removed the sentence "which cannot be represented using jCard" in
Section 1.1.
B.3. Change from 02 to 03
1. Updated section "Conventions Used in This Document".
2. Updated the contact in "IANA Considerations" section.
3. Changed the reference draft-loffredo-calext-jscontact-vcard to
draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-vcard.
4. Added reference to RFC8174.
5. Other minor edits.
B.4. Change from 03 to 04
1. Updated the reference draft-dalal-deprecation-header to draft-
ietf-httpapi-deprecation-header.
B.5. Initial WG version
1. Ported from draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-jcard-deprecation-04
renamed to draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact-00.
B.6. Change from 00 to 01
1. Updated Section 3 and Figure 2.
B.7. Change from 01 to 02
1. Updated Section 2 and Figure 2.
B.8. Change from 02 to 03
1. Replaced references to obsolete RFC7482 and RFC7483 with RFC9082
and RFC9083.
2. Updated Section 3 and Figure 2.
B.9. Change from 03 to 04
1. Changed the references to Internet Drafts.
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
2. Added an example showing how localizations are treated in
JSContact.
3. Changed the position of section "Goals" in Section 4.2.
4. Added three more implementations to Section 5.
5. Changed the rdapConformance tag "jscard" to "jscard_0"
6. Added clarifications addressing the feedback provided by Jasdip
Singh about version -03.
7. Added Section 10.
8. Other minor edits.
B.10. Change from 04 to 05
1. Updated Figure 2 to make it compliant with draft-ietf-jmap-
jscontact-09.
B.11. Change from 05 to 06
1. Reviewed the notices presented in stages.
B.12. Change from 06 to 07
1. Corrected the JSON Pointer expressions in Figure 1.
2. Other minor edits.
B.13. Change from 07 to 08
1. Corrected a nit in Figure 1.
2. Removed the reference to draft-ietf-httpapi-deprecation-header.
3. Replaced the "deprecation" link relation type with "related".
4. Moved the references to JSContact drafts to the "Normative
References" section.
B.14. Change from 08 to 09
1. Updated the references to JSContact drafts due to the transfer
from JMAP to CalExt.
B.15. Change from 09 to 10
1. Updated Figure 2 to make it compliant with draft-ietf-calext-
jscontact-02.
B.16. Change from 10 to 11
1. Added Appendix "jCard-JSContact Mapping".
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
B.17. Change from 11 to 12
1. Renamed the "jscard" property to "jscard_0".
2. Corrected JSONPath expressions in Appendix A.
B.18. Change from 12 to 13
1. Reverted the names of response extension, the rdapConformance tag
and extension identifier from "jscard_0" to "jscard".
2. Corrected Figure 1 by removing initial '/' character from
JSONPath notations related to localizations.
B.19. Change from 13 to 14
1. Corrected Figure 2 by replacing "online" property with
"cryptoKeys" and "links" properties.
B.20. Change from 14 to 15
1. Corrected Figure 1, Figure 2 and Appendix A to make them
compliant with draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-06.
2. Removed mention of JSContact CardGroup object.
3. Renamed and changed Section 3.
4. Added Section 6.2.
B.21. Change from 15 to 16
1. Replaced JSContact "type" with "kind" in figures.
2. Removed "jCard deprecation" stage and "jcard" query parameter.
3. Renamed "jCard deprecated" stage into "jCard deprecation".
4. Rephrased Section 9.
5. Corrected JSContact examples based on draft-ietf-calext-
jscontact-11.
6. Fixed nits.
B.22. Change from 16 to 17
1. Fixed Figure 1, Figure 2, Section 6.3 and Appendix A to make them
compliant with draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-16 and purge them of
the JSContact properties which are hardly used in RDAP.
2. Rearranged Section 3.
3. Added other mapping correspondences to Appendix A.
B.23. Change from 17 to 18
1. Updated references.
2. Updated Gavin Brown's contact info.
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
3. Removed from the notices field the optional link documenting the
transition procedure.
4. Added text to Section 2.
5. Added a reference to RFC9553 section defining the Id type.
6. Tagged all BCP14 keywords.
7. Changed the example in Figure 2.
8. Added Section 3.1.6.
9. Changed Section 4.2.2.4 by removing the sentence about the
duration of the transition process.
B.24. Change from 18 to 19
1. Turned the draft status into "Experimental".
2. Changed "@version" to "version" in the examples.
3. Rearranged the content of the "Query Parameters" section and
renamed it into "Request for JSContact".
4. Added Section 3.1.2.
5. Added Section 3.2.
6. Rearranged Section 4.1.
7. Rearranged Figure 3.
8. Removed from Section 4.2.2.3 the "FOR DISCUSSION" item.
9. Added to Section 4.2.2.3 a notice signaling the jCard
deprecation.
10. Changed the fixed literal to redact the URI in Section 9.
11. Removed an informative reference and the first paragraph of
Section 4.2 including it.
B.25. Change from 19 to 20
1. Renamed the "jscard" extension identifier into "jscontact".
2. Renamed the "jscard" property into "jscontact_card".
3. Replaced any instance of the verbatim string "JSCard" with
"JSContact".
4. Rephrased Section 3.1.3 by removing "1.0" as a mandatory value
for the JSContact version property in RDAP and adding the value
to the "RDAP JSON Values" registry.
5. Corrected link in Figure 3.
6. Minor editorial changes.
B.26. Change from 20 to 21
1. Added the "Experimental Status" section.
2. Changed the controller of IANA registries from IESG to IETF.
3. Replaced "rdap-x" with "rdap" in the rdap-x media type.
4. Minor editorial changes.
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
B.27. Change from 21 to 22
1. Changed JSContact version "1.0" to "2.0".
2. Removed any reference to the JSContact uid property.
3. Rephrased text of Section 9.
4. Removed JSContact properties from examples that are not included
in the RDAP profile for JSContact.
5. Added a section about the registration of the JSContact profile
for RDAP.
6. Added ips and autnums to the searchable resource types of
Section 6.3.
7. Minor editorial changes.
B.28. Change from 22 to 23
1. Revised the "Experimental Status" section.
2. Revised the registration of the JSContact profile for RDAP.
Added a section that formally lists the profile properties.
3. Added the handling and registration of noJcard extension
identifier.
4. Changed the notice used in the transition process by changing the
"title" property into "type" and registered the values in the
"RDAP JSON Values" registry.
5. Changed the naming scheme for map keys other than those
predefined and clarified that those keys should be stable.
6. Revised the "Security Considerations" section and renamed it into
"Privacy Considerations". Added a "Security Considerations"
section presenting no substantial implication on security.
7. Updated the "Acknowledgements" section.
8. Minor editorial changes.
B.29. Change from 23 to 24
1. Changed the status to "Standards Track".
2. Removed the "Experimental Status" section and arranged references
accordingly.
3. Corrected example in Figure 3.
4. Added Section 5.5.
5. Added references to IANA registries.
B.30. Change from 24 to 25
1. Added "country" to the allowable values listed in Section 3.1.8
for the "kind" property of the AddressComponent object.
2. Aligned content of Section 3.1.2 to version -06 of
[I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-versioning].
3. Added Section 7 for compliance with [I-D.ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis]
4. Corrected nits.
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
B.31. Change from 25 to 26
1. Updated the JSContact 2.0 reference from [I-D.ietf-calext-
jscontact-uid] to [RFC9982].
2. Moved [I-D.ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis] from the Normative References
to the Informative References.
3. Revised Section 3.1.1 to prohibit the simultaneous use of
"jscontact_card" and "vcardArray" and to require a consistent
contact representation within an RDAP response.
4. Revised Section 3.1.2 to define Point Versioning for the
extension, including the "jscontact-0.4" Point Extension Version
Identifier and its replacement with "jscontact-1.0" upon
publication.
5. Updated Section 3.1.3 to require the Card "version" member to
have the value "2.0".
6. Revised Section 3.1.5 to clarify the condition for setting the
Card "language" member.
7. Corrected the text of Section 3.1.7.
8. Revised Section 3.1.12 to allow gaps in map-key numbering when
an associated map entry is removed, including as a result of
redaction.
9. Replaced the table in Section 3.1.14 with a list of the
properties of the JSContact profile for RDAP.
10. Updated Figure 2 to include "versioning_data" and the Point
Versioning information for the "versioning" and "jscontact"
extensions.
11. Revised Section 3.2 to prohibit clients from requesting
JSContact using both negotiation mechanisms in the same request
and to define server behavior when both mechanisms are used.
12. Clarified in Section 4.2.2.3 that a JSContact request received
during Stage 3 does not affect representation selection and that
the server always returns JSContact.
13. Rearranged the IANA registrations in Section 6.3 by separating
the reverse-search mappings for non-localized and localized "fn"
and "email" properties.
14. Corrected the field names and reference of the JSContact profile
registration in Section 6.4.
15. Revised the JSONPath expressions in Appendix A, including the
paths for localized JSContact properties and the filters for
jCard "tel" properties.
16. Removed from Appendix A the mapping of the jCard "post office
box" address component, which is not included in the JSContact
profile for RDAP.
17. Revised Section 7.5 to define caching requirements for
representation selection based on the Accept header field,
including the use of the Vary response header field and Cache-
Control directives.
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP August 2026
18. Revised Section 8 to clarify how the optionality of JSContact
properties allows personally identifiable information to be
redacted using the Removal Method.
19. Revised Section 9 to add security considerations concerning
access control, redaction, data release, caching, and resource
limits for JSContact representations.
20. Removed a duplicated change-log entry and corrected the
numbering of the subsequent entries.
21. Made minor editorial corrections.
Authors' Addresses
Mario Loffredo
IIT-CNR/Registro.it
Via Moruzzi, 1
56124 Pisa
Italy
Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it
URI: http://www.iit.cnr.it
Gavin Brown
ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90292
United States of America
Email: gavin.brown@icann.org
URI: https://www.icann.org/
Loffredo & Brown Expires 28 February 2027 [Page 39]