| Internet-Draft | Using JSContact in RDAP | April 2021 |
| Loffredo & Brown | Expires 17 October 2021 | [Page] |
This document describes an RDAP extension which represents entity contact information in JSON responses using JSContact.¶
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 17 October 2021.¶
Copyright (c) 2021 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.¶
This document specifies an extension to the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) that allows RDAP servers to 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 transition from jCard to JSContact. RDAP query and response extensions are defined to facilitate the transition process.¶
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, 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, similarly to jCard, it provides a means to represent internationalised and unstructured contact information. Support for internationalised contact information has been recognised being necessary to facilitate the future internationalisation of registration data directory services.¶
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.¶
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 objects are considered.¶
JSCard differs from jCard in that it:¶
[draft-ietf-jmap-jscontact-vcard] provides informational guidance on the conversion of jCard objects into JSCard objects, and vice versa.¶
Entity objects in RDAP responses MAY include a "jscard" property whose value is a JSCard object instead of the "vCardArray" property defined in [RFC7483].¶
Servers returning the "jscard" property in their response MUST include "jscard" in the "rdapConformance" array.¶
The JSCard "uid" property SHOULD contain the same value as the RDAP "handle" property.¶
Since most of the JSCard collections are represented as maps, map keys must be defined. To aid interoperability, RDAP providers are RECOMMENDED to use as map keys the string values and labels defined in [RFC5733] while mapping mostly used contact information in registries' context:¶
Implementers MAY use different mapping schemes to define keys for additional entries of the aforementioned maps or others.¶
An example of an RDAP response containing a "jscard" property is shown in Figure 1. The "jscard" object in this example has been converted from the example included in section 5.1 of [RFC7483].¶
{
"rdapConformance": [
"rdap_level_0",
"jscard"
],
"objectClassName" : "entity",
"handle":"XXXX",
"jscard":{
"uid": "XXXX",
"fullName": { "value": "Joe User" },
"kind": "individual",
"preferredContactLanguages": {
"fr": { "pref": 1 },
"en": { "pref": 2 }
},
"organizations": {
"org": {
"name": { "value": "Example" }
}
},
"titles": {
"title-1": {
"title": { "value": "Research Scientist" }
},
"title-2": {
"title": { "value": "Project Lead" }
}
},
"addresses": {
"int": {
"contexts": { "work": true },
"extension": "Suite 1234",
"street": "4321 Rue Somewhere",
"locality": "Quebec",
"region": "QC",
"postcode": "G1V 2M2",
"country": "Canada",
"coordinates": "geo:46.772673,-71.282945",
"timeZone": "Canada/Eastern"
},
"home": {
"contexts": { "private": true },
"fullAddress": {
"value": "123 Maple Ave\nSuite 90001\nVancouver\nBC\n1239\n"
}
}
},
"phones": {
"voice" : {
"contexts": { "work": true },
"features": { "voice": true },
"label": "cell,video,text",
"pref": 1,
"phone": "tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=102"
}
},
"emails": {
"email": {
"contexts": { "work": true },
"email": "joe.user@example.com"
}
},
"online": {
"key": {
"contexts": { "work": true },
"type": "uri",
"label": "key",
"resource": "http://www.example.com/joe.user/joe.asc"
},
"url": {
"contexts": { "private": true },
"type": "uri",
"label": "url",
"resource": "http://example.org"
}
}
},
"roles":[ "registrar" ],
"publicIds":[
{
"type":"IANA Registrar ID",
"identifier":"1"
}
],
"remarks":[
{
"description":[
"She sells sea shells down by the sea shore.",
"Originally written by Terry Sullivan."
]
}
],
"links":[
{
"value":"http://example.com/entity/XXXX",
"rel":"self",
"href":"http://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"
}
]
}
Two new query parameters are defined for the purpose of this document.¶
The query parameters are OPTIONAL extensions of path segments defined in [RFC7482]. They are as follows:¶
RDAP allows servers to communicate service information to clients through notices. An RDAP response may contain one or more notice objects ([RFC7483], Section 4.3), each of which may include a set of link objects, which can be used to provide clients with references and documentation. These link objects may have a "rel" property which defines the relationship type, as described in [RFC8288], Section 4. The transition process outlined in this document uses two types of link relation:¶
The information about the specifications used in the construction of the response is also described by the strings which appear in the "rdapConformance" property of the RDAP response.¶
Clients are able to ask servers to use specific RDAP features by using appropriate query parameters as described in [RFC7482].¶
The procedure for jCard to JSCard transition consists of four contiguous stages. During the procedure, the presence of "jscard" tag in the rdapConformance array indicates that JSCard is returned instead of jCard. The time format used to notify clients about this procedure is defined in [RFC3339].¶
Some elements of the following procedure are based on the best practices in [API-DEPRECATION].¶
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 MUST NOT contain the "jscard" tag.¶
During this stage, the server uses jCard by default, but the RDAP server will return JSCard if the client sets the query parameter "jscard" to a true value. The rdapConformance array MUST contain the "jscard" tag if JSCard is requested.¶
The RDAP server SHOULD include a notice titled "jCard sunset end". Such a notice should include a description reporting the jCard sunset end time and two links:¶
"notices": [
{
"title": "jCard 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": "application/rdap+json",
"href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jscard=1"
}
]
}
]
"notices": [
{
"title": "jCard 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"
}
]
}
]
This stage corresponds to the provisioning of JSCard by default, but the RDAP will return jCard if the client sets the query parameter "jcard" to a true value. The rdapConformance array contains the "jscard" tag unless jCard is requested. The "jscard" query parameter is ignored.¶
The RDAP server SHOULD to return a notice titled "jCard deprecation end". Such a notice should include a description reporting the jCard deprecation end time and two links:¶
"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": "application/rdap+json",
"href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX?jcard=1"
}
]
}
]
"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": "application/rdap+json",
"href": " http://example.net/entity/XXXX"
}
]
}
]
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 "jscard" tag. The RDAP server doesn't include any notice about the jCard deprecation process. Both "jscard" and "jcard" query parameters are ignored.¶
The length of both jCard 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.¶
The procedure described in this document achieves the following goals:¶
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".¶
IANA is requested to register the following values in the RDAP Extensions Registry:¶
Unlike jCard, the formatted name as well as any other personally identifiable information is not required in JSCard. The only mandatory property, namely "uid", is usually an opaque string. Therefore, redacted properties can be merely excluded without using placeholder values.¶