Registration Protocols Extensions M. Loffredo
Internet-Draft IIT-CNR/Registro.it
Intended status: Best Current Practice G. Brown
Expires: September 24, 2020 CentralNic Group plc
March 23, 2020
Using JSContact in Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) JSON
Responses
draft-loffredo-regext-rdap-jcard-deprecation-00
Abstract
This document describes how RDAP servers can represent 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 September 24, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Loffredo & Brown Expires September 24, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP March 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. JSContact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Using JSCard objects in RDAP Responses . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Migration from JCard to JSCard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Best Practices for deprecating a REST API features . . . 5
4.2. RDAP Features Supporting a Deprecation Process . . . . . 5
4.3. jCard Deprecation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3.1. Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3.2. Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.3. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
This document specifies how RDAP servers can use JSContact
([draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact]) 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 migrate from jCard to JSContact.
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 clients 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 ([draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact]) provides a simpler and more
efficient representation for contact information. In addition, it
provides a means to represent internationalised and unstructured
contact information which cannot currently be represented using
jCard. Support for internationalised contact information has been
Loffredo & Brown Expires September 24, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP March 2020
recognised being 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", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
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.
The JSContact specification declares two main object types: "JSCard",
which represents a single contact "card", and "JSCardGroup" which
represents a collection of JSCard objects. For the purpose of this
document, only JSCard obejcts are considered.
JSCard differs from jCard in that it:
o follows an object-oriented rather than array-oriented approach;
o is simple to process;
o requires no extra work in serialization/deserialization from/to a
data model;
o includes no "jagged" arrays;
o prefers maps rather than arrays to implement collections;
o is able to represent redacted contacts (both "name" and "fullName"
properties are optional).
[draft-loffredo-jmap-jscontact-vcard] provides informational guidance
on the conversion of jCard objects into JSCard objects, and vice
versa.
Loffredo & Brown Expires September 24, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP March 2020
3. Using JSCard objects in RDAP Responses
Entity objects in RDAP responses MAY include a "jscard" property
whose value is a JSCard object, in addition, or instead of, the
"vCardArray" property defined in RFC 7483.
Example of an entity object containing a "jscard" property:
{
"objectClassName": "entity",
"handle": "entity-12345",
"roles": ["registrant"],
"status": ["validated"],
"jscard": {
"uid": "entity-12345",
"fullName": "John Doe",
"organization": [
{
"value": "Example Inc"
}
],
"addresses": [
{
"street": "123 Example Street",
"locality": "Exampleton",
"region": "Exampleshire",
"postcode": "EX1 2AM",
"country": "Exampletania"
}
],
"phones": [
{
"value": "tel:+12.3456789"
}
],
"emails": [
{
"value": "jdoe@example.com"
}
]
}
}
4. Migration from JCard to JSCard
Loffredo & Brown Expires September 24, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP March 2020
4.1. Best Practices for deprecating a REST API features
Deprecation of a REST API feature is a process that should be
executed as smartly as possible. Before introducing the basic
principles guiding a deprecation process, it could be useful to
clarify about the terms deprecation and sunsetting:
o Deprecating an API means it is not usable in its current form for
the purpose intended. This usually means that a new version has
been created, or the API provider no longer intends to support it.
o Sunsetting is merely a period of time leading up to a deprecation.
It is a period of limited support, while deprecation is the period
in which support officially ends. In the meantime, the support
for an alternate feature replacing the old one might be provided.
A sunsetting plan can be set up months or even years in advance of
the deprecation announcement.
That being said, here are a few guidelines to deprecate a REST API
feature:
o "Communicating": REST API providers should announce the intended
deprecation communicating the timeline and any other helpful
information.
o "Planning a long enough sunset period": a good sunset period is
important as it gives API consumers time to work on their clients.
Such a period could consist of API updates to fit the future
version.
o "Providing alternatives": when entering the sunset period, there
may be a provision for elements like redirect URIs, migration
endpoints, etc., but, at the same time, the API might still
respond to old fashioned requests in order to guarantee backward
compatibility for a limited period.
4.2. RDAP Features Supporting a Deprecation Process
RDAP enables servers to communicate service information to clients
through notices. A notice can include a set of links which can be
used to provide clients with references and documentation. For the
purpose of this document, two link relation types are used:
o "deprecation" as described in [draft-dalal-deprecation-header];
o "alternate" as described in [RFC8288].
Loffredo & Brown Expires September 24, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP March 2020
The information about the specifications used in the construction of
the response is also described by the "rdapConformance" tags.
Clients are able to ask servers for RDAP features by using
appropriate query parameters as described in [RFC7482].
4.3. jCard Deprecation Procedure
The procedure for jCard to JSCard migration consists of four
contiguous stages, each one corresponding to as many alternatives in
providing the contact card. During the procedure, the presence of
"jscard_level_0" tag in the rdapConformance array means that JSCard
is returned instead of jCard. The time format used in notifying
clients about this procedure is defined in [RFC3339].
4.3.1. Stages
Here in the following the four stages are reported in detail:
Stage 1 - JSCard unimplemented
This stage corresponds to providing jCard as default contact card
([RFC7483]). The RDAP server is not able to provide an alternate
contact card. The rdapConformance array contains only the
"rdap_level_0" tag.
Stage 2 - JSCard sunset
This stage corresponds to providing jCard as default contact card
but the RDAP server is able to alternatively return JSCard if the
client sets the query parameter "jscard" to 1/true/yes. The
rdapConformance array contains the "rdap_level_0" tag but also the
"jscard_level_0" tag if JSCard is requested.
The RDAP server is recommended to return a notice titled "JSCard
sunset end". Such a notice should include a description reporting
the JSCard sunset end time and two links:
* "deprecation": a link to a URI-identified resource documenting
the jCard deprecation;
* "alternate": if JSCard is not requested, a link to the JSCard
version of same resource as identified by the current query
string plus the parameter "jscard" set to 1/true/yes
(Figure 1); otherwise, only the "deprecation" link is provided
(Figure 2).
Loffredo & Brown Expires September 24, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP March 2020
"notices": [
{
"title": "JSCard sunset end",
"description": ["2020-07-01T00:00:00Z"],
"links": [{
"value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel": "deprecation",
"type": "text/html",
"href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html"
},
{
"value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel": "alternate",
"type": "text/html",
"href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jscard=1"
}
]
}
]
Figure 1: JSCard sunset - JSCard not requested
"notices": [
{
"title": "JSCard sunset end",
"description": ["2020-07-01T00:00:00Z"],
"links": [
{
"value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jscard=1",
"rel": "deprecation",
"type": "text/html",
"href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html"
}
]
}
]
Figure 2: JSCard sunset - JSCard requested
Stage 3 - jCard deprecation
This stage corresponds to the provisioning of JSCard as default
contact card but the RDAP server is able to alternatively return
jCard if the client sets the query parameter "jcard" to 1/true/
yes. The rdapConformance array contains both "rdap_level_0" and
"jscard_level_0" tags unless jCard is requested. The "jscard"
query parameter is ignored.
Loffredo & Brown Expires September 24, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP March 2020
The RDAP server is recommended to return a notice titled "jCard
deprecation end". Such a notice should include a description
reporting the jCard deprecation end time and two links:
* "deprecation": a link to a URI-identified resource documenting
the jCard deprecation;
* "alternate": if jCard is not requested, a link to the jCard
version of the same resource as identified by the current query
string plus the parameter "jcard" set to 1/true/yes (Figure 3);
otherwise, a link to the JSCard version of the same resource as
identified by the current query string without the parameter
"jcard" (Figure 4).
"notices": [
{
"title": "jCard deprecation end",
"description": ["2020-12-31T23:59:59Z"],
"links": [
{
"value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel": "deprecation",
"type": "text/html",
"href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html"
},
{
"value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX",
"rel": "alternate",
"type": "text/html",
"href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1"
}
]
}
]
Figure 3: jCard deprecation - jCard not requested
Loffredo & Brown Expires September 24, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP March 2020
"notices": [
{
"title": "jCard deprecation end",
"description": ["2020-12-31T23:59:59Z"],
"links": [
{
"value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1",
"rel": "deprecation",
"type": "text/html",
"href": "http://www.example.com/jcard_deprecation.html"
},
{
"value": "http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1",
"rel": "alternate",
"type": "text/html",
"href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX"
}
]
}
]
Figure 4: jCard deprecation - jCard requested
Stage 4 - jCard deprecated
This stage corresponds to providing JSCard as default contact
card. The RDAP server is not able to provide an alternate contact
card. The rdapConformance array always contains both
"rdap_level_0" and "jscard_level_0" tags. The RDAP server doesn't
include any notice about the jCard deprecation process. Both
"jscard" and "jcard" query parameters are ignored.
4.3.2. Length
The length of both JSCard sunset and jCard deprecation periods are
not fixed by this specification. Best practices in REST API
deprecation suggest that, depending on the deprecated API's reach,
user base and service offering, a convenient time could be anywhere
between 3 - 8 months. Anyway, RDAP providers are recommended to
monitor the server log to figure out whether declared times need to
be changed to meet client requirements.
4.3.3. Goals
The procedure described in this document achieves the following
goals:
o only one contact representation would be included in the response;
Loffredo & Brown Expires September 24, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP March 2020
o the response would always be compliant to RFC7483;
o clients would be informed about the transition timeline;
o the backward compatibility would be guaranteed throughout the
transition;
o servers and clients could execute their transitions independently.
5. 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 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
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 a "proof of concept" research
implementation.
Loffredo & Brown Expires September 24, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP March 2020
Coverage: This implementation includes all of the features
described in this specification.
Contact Information: Mario Loffredo, mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
7. Security Considerations
This document doesn't report any security consideration.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7482>.
[RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7483>.
[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>.
Loffredo & Brown Expires September 24, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Using JSContact in RDAP March 2020
[RFC8288] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 8288,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8288, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8288>.
8.2. Informative References
[draft-dalal-deprecation-header]
Dalal, S. and E. Wilde, "The Deprecation HTTP Header
Field", <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dalal-
deprecation-header/>.
[draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact]
Stepanek, R. and M. Loffredo, "JSContact: A JSON
representation of contact data",
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jmap-
jscontact/>.
[draft-loffredo-jmap-jscontact-vcard]
Loffredo, M. and R. Stepanek, "JSContact: Converting from
and to vCard", <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
loffredo-jmap-jscontact-vcard/>.
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Mario Loffredo
IIT-CNR/Registro.it
Via Moruzzi,1
Pisa 56124
IT
Email: mario.loffredo@iit.cnr.it
URI: http://www.iit.cnr.it
Gavin Brown
CentralNic Group plc
Saddlers House, 44 Gutter Lane
London, England EC2V 6BR
GB
Phone: +44 20 33 88 0600
Email: gavin.brown@centralnic.com
URI: https://www.centralnic.com
Loffredo & Brown Expires September 24, 2020 [Page 12]