Network Working Group J.G.
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Gould
Internet-Draft D.S.
Request for Comments: 9537 D. Smith
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track VeriSign, Inc.
Expires: 30 May 2024 J.K.
ISSN: 2070-1721 J. Kolker
R.C.
R. Carney
GoDaddy Inc.
27 November 2023
March 2024
Redacted Fields in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Response
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-16
Abstract
This document describes an RDAP a Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)
extension for specifying methods of redaction of RDAP responses and
explicitly identifying redacted RDAP response fields, using JSONPath
as the default expression language.
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 an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 30 May 2024.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9537.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info)
(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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Redaction Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Redaction by Removal Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Redaction by Empty Value Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Redaction by Partial Value Method . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Redaction by Replacement Value Method . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Redacted RDAP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. "redacted" Member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. JSONPath Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.1. JSONPath Client Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.2. JSONPath Server Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.1. RDAP Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.2. RDAP JSON Values Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it RDAP Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
10.1. Informative
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
10.2.
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
A.3. Change from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A.4. Change from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A.5. Change from 04 to 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A.6. Change from 05 to 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A.7. Change from 06 to 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A.8. Change from 07 to 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
A.9. Change from 08 to 09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
A.10. Change from 09 to 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
A.11. Change from 10 to 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
A.12. Change from 11 to 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
A.13. Change from 12 to 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
A.14. Change from 13 to 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
A.15. Change from 14 to 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
A.16. Change from 15 to 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
8.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1. Introduction
This document describes an RDAP extension for specifying methods of
redaction of RDAP responses and explicitly identifying redacted RDAP
response fields, using JSONPath as the default expression language.
A redacted RDAP field is one that has data removed or replaced in the
RDAP response due to server policy, such as the lack of client
privilege to receive the field. This extension can be used to
identify redacted RDAP fields in any RDAP object class, as defined in
[RFC9083], or RDAP fields defined in RDAP extensions. Because an
RDAP response may exclude a field due to either the lack of data or
based on
the lack of RDAP client privileges, this extension is used to
explicitly specify which RDAP fields are not included in the RDAP
response due to redaction. It thereby provides a capability for
disambiguation between redaction and possible other possible reasons for data
or field absence.
In [RFC9082] [RFC9082], RDAP supports both lookup and search queries, where a
lookup query responds with a single object and a search query
responds with a list of objects. This document applies to redaction
of a single object of a lookup response and in each of the objects of
a search response.
JSONPath, as defined in [I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base], [RFC9535], is used as the default expression
language to reference RDAP fields that have been redacted. The
redacted JSON fields will either be removed, have empty values, have partial
values, or be replaced in the RDAP response. JSON is defined by
[RFC8259].
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.
The JSON examples include extra line breaks and whitespace. empty space. For
instance, the JSONPath expressions are broken out into multiple lines
when required for illustration.
The JSONPath expressions in the examples are for illustration
purposes with single-role entities entities, and the exact expressions to use be
used by the server is out-of-scope. are out of scope.
3. Redaction Methods
Redaction in RDAP can be handled in multiple ways. Redaction in RDAP
can be handled in multiple ways. The resulting
redacted RDAP response MUST comply with the format defined in the
RDAP RFCs with
the RDAP RFCs, such as [RFC9083] and updates. The use of placeholder
text for the values of the RDAP fields, such as the placeholder text "XXXX", MUST NOT be
used for redaction, since the placeholder text value may not match
the format requirements of each of the RDAP
fields and provides fields, which could
provide an inconsistent and unreliable redaction signal. This
section covers the redaction methods that can be used with the
redaction signaling defined in Section 4.2.
RDAP responses, as defined in [RFC9083], include a mix of JSON
objects and JSON arrays, where JSON arrays are heavily used for
entity objects with jCard [RFC7095]. jCard [RFC7095] is a JSON representation
of vCard [RFC6350] that inherits its dependency on arrays. An
example is the vCard [RFC6350] "ADR" property / [RFC6350], or the jCard
[RFC7095] "adr"
property that [RFC7095], which defines a sequence of address components.
According to [RFC6350], when an "ADR" property component value is
missing, the associated component separator MUST still be specified.
jCard [RFC7095] extends the use of arrays with each individual vCard property
being represented by an array of three fixed elements, followed by
one or more additional elements. The mix of JSON objects and JSON
arrays impacts the methods used for redaction in RDAP.
The redaction of RDAP fields fall into the four categories defined in
the following sub-sections. subsections.
3.1. Redaction by Removal Method
The Redaction by Removal Method is when the RDAP field is removed
from the RDAP response, which is the default method. The Redaction
by Removal Method can be done for all RDAP response fields other than except for
response fields using the position in an array to signal the redacted
field (e.g., the JSON arrays used with jCard [RFC7095]). jCard). RDAP
extensions extensions, such
as the one described in "Using JSContact in Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) JSON Responses [I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact] Responses" [RDAP-JSCONTACT], do not have a
dependency on the use of positional JSON arrays and are therefore
suited for the Redaction by Removal Method.
When an RDAP object is redacted by removal, all of the RDAP object's
child fields are also removed. Only the redacted RDAP object needs
to be referenced in the list of redacted fields, as defined in
Section 4.2.
An example of redacting an RDAP object is removing the administrative
contact from the RDAP response and including the following "redacted"
member:
"redacted": [
{
"name": {
"description": "Administrative Contact"
},
"prePath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='administrative')]",
"method": "removal"
}
]
Figure 1: Redacted Administrative Contact
The Redaction by Removal Method MUST NOT be used to remove an element
of an array where the position of the element in the array determines
semantic meaning. For example, removal of an individual data field
in jCard [RFC7095] will result in a non-conformant jCard [RFC7095] array definition.
3.2. Redaction by Empty Value Method
The Redaction by Empty Value Method is when a redacted field is not
removed,
removed but its value is set to an empty value, such as "" for a
jCard [RFC7095] Text text ("text") property or null for a non-Text non-text property. The
empty jCard [RFC7095] values ("" or null) are referenced in the "redacted"
member in place of the jCard [RFC7095] property name in a an array, such as
referencing the "fn" jCard
[RFC7095] property value at position 3 instead of
referencing the "fn" jCard property name at position 0. The
Redaction by Empty Value Method MUST be used only when redacting JSON
response fields that use the position in an array to signal the
redacted field (e.g., jCard
[RFC7095] arrays). Optional jCard [RFC7095] properties MUST
use the Redaction by Removal Method (Section 3.1) to redact the
entire property. The required jCard [RFC7095] "fn" property, defined in
section
Section 6.2.1 of vCard [RFC6350], MUST use the Redaction by Empty
Value Method to redact the property value. Removing the "fn"
property would violate vCard [RFC6350] [RFC6350], and removing the property
value would violate the fixed array positions defined in jCard
[RFC7095].
An example of the redacted "fn" jCard property using the Redaction by
Empty Value Method: jCard.
[
"fn",
{},
"text",
""
]
Figure 2: Redacted "fn" jCard property using Property Using the Redaction by
Empty Value Method
An example of the "redacted" member for the redacted "fn" jCard
property value, which is array position 3:
"redacted": [
{
"name": {
"description": "Registrant Name"
},
"postPath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='fn')][3]",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "emptyValue",
"reason": {
"description": "Server policy"
}
}
]
Figure 3: Redacted Registrant Name using Using an Array Position
3.3. Redaction by Partial Value Method
The Redaction by Partial Value Method is when a redacted field is not
removed,
removed but its value has a portion of the data removed, such as for
the "label" or "fn" jCard [RFC7095] properties. The partial values are
referenced in the "redacted" member in place of the property name in a
an array, such as referencing the "fn" jCard [RFC7095] property value at
position 3 instead of referencing the "fn" jCard property name at
position 0. The Redaction by Partial Value Method SHOULD be used
only when redacting JSON response fields that use a formatted value,
where a portion of the value is removed.
An example of the "label" jCard property in Figure 15 Section 3.3.1.3 of
[RFC7095] that redacts "123 Maple Ave\nSuite 901\n":
["adr",
{
"type":"home",
"label":"Vancouver\nBC\n1239\n"
},
"text",
[
"", "", "", "", "", "", ""
]
]
Figure 4: Redacted "label" jCard property Property
An example of the "redacted" member for the redacted "label" jCard
property value, based on Figure 15 Section 3.3.1.3 of [RFC7095]:
"redacted": [
{
"name": {
"description": "Home Address Label"
},
"postPath": "$.vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='adr')][1].label",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "partialValue",
"reason": {
"description": "Server policy"
}
}
]
Figure 5: Redacted Label using Using the Redaction by Partial Value Method
3.4. Redaction by Replacement Value Method
The Redaction by Replacement Value Method is when a redacted field is
not removed, removed but its value is replaced with a different value, such as
protecting the "email" jCard [RFC7095] property value with an anonymized email
"text" value or the use of an alternative "uri" value to a web form.
Replacing a property value is a form of redaction, since it protects
the true property value for privacy reasons.
An example of the redacted "email" jCard property using the Redaction
by Replacement Value Method with an anonymized email:
[
"email",
{},
"text",
"anonymized123@example.com"
]
Figure 6: Redacted "email" jCard property using Property Using the Redaction by
Replacement Value Method with an anonymized email
An example of the "redacted" member for the redacted registrant
"email" jCard property value with an anonymized "text" value. Anonymized Email
"redacted": [
{
"name": {
"description": "Registrant Email"
},
"postPath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='email')][3]",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "replacementValue",
}
]
Figure 7: Redacted Email using Using a Replacement Value with an
anonymized
Anonymized "text" value
An example of the redacted "email" jCard property using the Redaction
by Replacement Value Method with a [RFC8605] "contact-uri" jCard
property to a web form:
[
"contact-uri",
{},
"uri",
"https://email.example.com/123"
]
Figure 8: Redacted "email" jCard property using Property Using the Redaction by
Replacement Value Method with a "contact-uri" jCard property to a
web form
An example of the "redacted" member for the redacted registrant
"email" jCard property with a [RFC8605] "contact-uri" jCard property Property to a web form:
Web Form
"redacted": [
{
"name": {
"description": "Registrant Email"
},
"prePath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='email')]",
"replacementPath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='contact-uri')]",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "replacementValue",
}
]
Figure 9: Redacted Email using Using a Replacement Value with a "contact-
uri"
"contact-uri" jCard property Property to a web form Web Form
4. Redacted RDAP Response
4.1. RDAP Conformance
RDAP responses that contain values described in this document MUST
indicate conformance with this specification by including an
"rdapConformance" ([RFC9083]) [RFC9083] value of "redacted". The "redacted"
extension identifier is described in Section 6.1.
Example "rdapConformance" member with the redacted extension:
"rdapConformance": [
"rdap_level_0",
"redacted"
]
Figure 10: "rdapConformance" with Redacted Extension
4.2. "redacted" Member
The "redacted" member MUST be added to the RDAP response when there
is one or more redacted fields. The "redacted" member is included as
a member of the object instance in a lookup response, such as the
object classes defined in [RFC9083], and as a member of the object
instances in a search response.
The server server, including a redacted signal signal, provides an unauthorized
client additional information related to the existence of data and
MAY exclude the redacted members for RDAP fields that are considered
a privacy issue in providing a data existence signal. The server MAY
choose to publish a redaction policy describing how this extension is
implemented for their constituency. The contents of such a policy
are outside the scope of this specification.
The "redacted" member contains an array of objects with the following
child members:
"name": REQUIRED logical name for the redacted field. The logical
name used for the redacted field is up to server policy. The
logical name is defined using an object with a "type" field
denoting a registered redacted name (see Section 6.2) or a
"description" field denoting an unregistered redacted name. The
registered redacted names and the chosen unregistered names can
meet the needs of different RDAP services or industries.
"prePath": OPTIONAL JSON path expression referencing a redacted JSON
field in the pre-redacted response. response, using the expression language
defined by the "pathLang" member. The "prePath" member MAY be
set when the redacted field does not exist in the redacted
response for the Redaction By by Removal Method (Section 3.1) and
the Redaction by Replacement Value Method (Section 3.4). The
"prePath" member MUST NOT be set when the "postPath" member is
set.
"postPath": OPTIONAL JSON path expression referencing a redacted
JSON field in the redacted (post-redacted) response. response, using the
expression language defined by the "pathLang" member. The
"postPath" member MUST be set when the redacted field does exist
in the redacted response for the Redaction by Empty Value Method
(Section 3.2), the Redaction by Partial Value Method
(Section 3.3), and the Redaction by Replacement Value Method
(Section 3.4). The "postPath" member MUST NOT be set when the
"prePath" member is set.
"replacementPath": OPTIONAL JSON path expression of the replacement
field of the redacted field with the Redaction by Replacement
Value Method (Section 3.4), using the expression language defined
by the "pathLang" member.
"pathLang": OPTIONAL JSON path expression language used, with the
default value of "jsonpath" for JSONPath
([I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base]). [RFC9535]. Other JSON
path expression languages registered with the "redacted
expression language" RDAP JSON
Values Registry Type in the "RDAP JSON Values" registry MAY
be used based on server policy.
"method": OPTIONAL redaction method used; used, with one of the following
values:
* "removal" indicating the Redaction By by Removal Method
(Section 3.1),
* "emptyValue" indicating the Redaction by Empty Value Method
(Section 3.2), or
* "partialValue" indicating the Redaction by Partial Value
Method (Section 3.3), or
* "replacementValue" indicating the Redaction by Replacement
Value Method. Method (Section 3.4) 3.4).
The default value is "removal" when not provided.
"reason": OPTIONAL human readable human-readable reason(s) for the redacted field
in the language defined by the [RFC9083] "lang" [RFC9083] member. The
default language is "en" if the [RFC9083] "lang" [RFC9083] member is not
specified. The reason is defined using an object with an
OPTIONAL "type" field denoting a registered redacted reason (see
see
Section 6.2) and an OPTIONAL "description" field denoting an
unregistered redacted reason. The "description" field MUST NOT
be a client processing dependency.
Example of the unredacted version of an RDAP lookup response:
{
"rdapConformance": [
"rdap_level_0"
],
"objectClassName": "domain",
"handle": "ABC123",
"ldhName": "example.com",
"secureDNS": {
"delegationSigned": false
},
"notices": [
{
"title": "Terms of Use",
"description": [
"Service subject to Terms of Use."
],
"links": [
{
"rel": "self",
"href": "https://www.example.com/terms-of-use",
"type": "text/html",
"value": "https://www.example.com/terms-of-use"
}
]
}
],
"nameservers": [
{
"objectClassName": "nameserver",
"ldhName": "ns1.example.com"
},
{
"objectClassName": "nameserver",
"ldhName": "ns2.example.com"
}
],
"entities": [
{
"objectClassName": "entity",
"handle": "123",
"roles": [
"registrar"
],
"publicIds": [
{
"type": "IANA Registrar ID",
"identifier": "1"
}
],
"vcardArray": [
"vcard",
[
[
"version",
{},
"text",
"4.0"
],
[
"fn",
{},
"text",
"Example Registrar Inc."
],
[
"adr",
{},
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 100",
"123 Example Dr.",
"Dulles",
"VA",
"20166-6503",
"US"
]
],
[
"email",
{},
"text",
"contact@organization.example"
],
[
"tel",
{
"type": "voice"
},
"uri",
"tel:+1.7035555555;ext=1234"
],
[
"tel",
{
"type": "fax"
},
"uri",
"tel:+1.7035555556"
]
]
],
"entities": [
{
"objectClassName": "entity",
"roles": [
"abuse"
],
"vcardArray": [
"vcard",
[
[
"version",
{},
"text",
"4.0"
],
[
"fn",
{},
"text",
"Abuse Contact"
],
[
"email",
{},
"text",
"abuse@organization.example"
],
[
"tel",
{
"type": "voice"
},
"uri",
"tel:+1.7035555555;ext=1234"
]
]
]
}
]
},
{
"objectClassName": "entity",
"handle": "XXXX",
"roles": [
"registrant"
],
"vcardArray": [
"vcard",
[
[
"version",
{},
"text",
"4.0"
],
[
"fn",
{},
"text",
"Registrant User"
],
[
"org",
{},
"text",
"Example Inc."
],
[
"adr",
{},
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1235",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
[
"email",
{},
"text",
"registrant.user@example.com"
],
[
"tel",
{
"type": "voice"
},
"uri",
"tel:+1-555-555-1235;ext=123"
],
[
"tel",
{
"type": "fax"
},
"uri",
"tel:+1-555-555-5321"
]
]
]
},
{
"objectClassName": "entity",
"handle": "YYYY",
"roles": [
"technical"
],
"vcardArray": [
"vcard",
[
[
"version",
{},
"text",
"4.0"
],
[
"fn",
{},
"text",
"Technical User"
],
[
"org",
{},
"text",
"Example Inc."
],
[
"adr",
{},
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
[
"email",
{},
"text",
"technical.user@example.com"
],
[
"tel",
{
"type": "voice"
},
"uri",
"tel:+1-555-555-1234;ext=321"
],
[
"tel",
{
"type": "fax"
},
"uri",
"tel:+1-555-555-4321"
]
]
]
},
{
"objectClassName": "entity",
"handle": "ZZZZ",
"roles": [
"administrative"
],
"vcardArray": [
"vcard",
[
[
"version",
{},
"text",
"4.0"
],
[
"fn",
{},
"text",
"Administrative User"
],
[
"org",
{},
"text",
"Example Inc."
],
[
"adr",
{},
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1236",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
],
[
"email",
{},
"text",
"administrative.user@example.com"
],
[
"tel",
{
"type": "voice"
},
"uri",
"tel:+1-555-555-1236;ext=789"
],
[
"tel",
{
"type": "fax"
},
"uri",
"tel:+1-555-555-6321"
]
]
]
},
{
"objectClassName": "entity",
"handle": "WWWW",
"roles": [
"billing"
],
"vcardArray": [
"vcard",
[
[
"version",
{},
"text",
"4.0"
],
[
"fn",
{},
"text",
"Billing User"
],
[
"email",
{},
"text",
"billing.user@example.com"
]
]
]
}
],
"events": [
{
"eventAction": "registration",
"eventDate": "1997-06-03T00:00:00Z"
},
{
"eventAction": "last changed",
"eventDate": "2020-05-28T01:35:00Z"
},
{
"eventAction": "expiration",
"eventDate": "2021-06-03T04:00:00Z"
}
],
"status": [
"server delete prohibited",
"server update prohibited",
"server transfer prohibited",
"client transfer prohibited"
]
}
Figure 11: Unredacted RDAP Lookup Response
Example of the redacted version of an RDAP lookup response:
{
"rdapConformance": [
"rdap_level_0",
"redacted"
],
"objectClassName": "domain",
"ldhName": "example.com",
"secureDNS": {
"delegationSigned": false
},
"notices": [
{
"title": "Terms of Use",
"description": [
"Service subject to Terms of Use."
],
"links": [
{
"rel": "self",
"href": "https://www.example.com/terms-of-use",
"type": "text/html",
"value": "https://www.example.com/terms-of-use"
}
]
}
],
"nameservers": [
{
"objectClassName": "nameserver",
"ldhName": "ns1.example.com"
},
{
"objectClassName": "nameserver",
"ldhName": "ns2.example.com"
}
],
"entities": [
{
"objectClassName": "entity",
"handle": "123",
"roles": [
"registrar"
],
"publicIds": [
{
"type": "IANA Registrar ID",
"identifier": "1"
}
],
"vcardArray": [
"vcard",
[
[
"version",
{},
"text",
"4.0"
],
[
"fn",
{},
"text",
"Example Registrar Inc."
],
[
"adr",
{},
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 100",
"123 Example Dr.",
"Dulles",
"VA",
"20166-6503",
"US"
]
],
[
"email",
{},
"text",
"contact@organization.example"
],
[
"tel",
{
"type": "voice"
},
"uri",
"tel:+1.7035555555"
],
[
"tel",
{
"type": "fax"
},
"uri",
"tel:+1.7035555556"
]
]
],
"entities": [
{
"objectClassName": "entity",
"roles": [
"abuse"
],
"vcardArray": [
"vcard",
[
[
"version",
{},
"text",
"4.0"
],
[
"fn",
{},
"text",
"Abuse Contact"
],
[
"email",
{},
"text",
"abuse@organization.example"
],
[
"tel",
{
"type": "voice"
},
"uri",
"tel:+1.7035555555"
]
]
]
}
]
},
{
"objectClassName": "entity",
"handle": "XXXX",
"roles": [
"registrant"
],
"vcardArray": [
"vcard",
[
[
"version",
{},
"text",
"4.0"
],
[
"fn",
{},
"text",
""
],
[
"adr",
{},
"text",
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"QC",
"",
"Canada"
]
]
]
]
},
{
"objectClassName": "entity",
"handle": "YYYY",
"roles": [
"technical"
],
"vcardArray": [
"vcard",
[
[
"version",
{},
"text",
"4.0"
],
[
"fn",
{},
"text",
""
],
[
"org",
{},
"text",
"Example Inc."
],
[
"adr",
{},
"text",
[
"",
"Suite 1234",
"4321 Rue Somewhere",
"Quebec",
"QC",
"G1V 2M2",
"Canada"
]
]
]
]
}
],
"events": [
{
"eventAction": "registration",
"eventDate": "1997-06-03T00:00:00Z"
},
{
"eventAction": "last changed",
"eventDate": "2020-05-28T01:35:00Z"
},
{
"eventAction": "expiration",
"eventDate": "2021-06-03T04:00:00Z"
}
],
"status": [
"server delete prohibited",
"server update prohibited",
"server transfer prohibited",
"client transfer prohibited"
],
"redacted": [
{
"name": {
"description": "Registry Domain ID"
},
"prePath": "$.handle",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "removal",
"reason": {
"description": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"description": "Registrant Name"
},
"postPath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='fn')][3]",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "emptyValue",
"reason": {
"description": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"description": "Registrant Organization"
},
"prePath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='org')]",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "removal",
"reason": {
"description": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"description": "Registrant Street"
},
"postPath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='adr')][3][:3]",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "emptyValue",
"reason": {
"description": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"description": "Registrant City"
},
"postPath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='adr')][3][3]",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "emptyValue",
"reason": {
"description": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"description": "Registrant Postal Code"
},
"postPath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='adr')][3][5]",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "emptyValue",
"reason": {
"description": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"description": "Registrant Email"
},
"prePath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='email')]",
"method": "removal",
"reason": {
"description": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"description": "Registrant Phone"
},
"prePath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[1].type=='voice')]",
"method": "removal",
"reason": {
"description": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"description": "Technical Name"
},
"postPath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='technical')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='fn')][3]",
"method": "emptyValue",
"reason": {
"description": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"description": "Technical Email"
},
"prePath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='technical')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='email')]",
"method": "removal",
"reason": {
"description": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"description": "Technical Phone"
},
"prePath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='technical')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[1].type=='voice')]",
"method": "removal",
"reason": {
"description": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"description": "Technical Fax"
},
"prePath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='technical')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[1].type=='fax')]",
"reason": {
"description": "Client request"
}
},
{
"name": {
"description": "Administrative Contact"
},
"prePath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='administrative')]",
"method": "removal",
"reason": {
"description": "Refer to the technical contact"
}
},
{
"name": {
"description": "Billing Contact"
},
"prePath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='billing')]",
"method": "removal",
"reason": {
"description": "Refer to the registrant contact"
}
}
]
}
Figure 12: Redacted RDAP Lookup Response
Example of the unredacted version of an RDAP search response:
{
"rdapConformance": [
"rdap_level_0"
],
"domainSearchResults":[
{
"objectClassName": "domain",
"handle": "ABC121",
"ldhName": "example1.com",
"links":[
{
"value":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example1.com",
"rel":"self",
"href":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example1.com",
"type":"application/rdap+json"
},
{
"value":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example1.com",
"rel":"related",
"href":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example1.com",
"type":"application/rdap+json"
}
]
},
{
"objectClassName": "domain",
"handle": "ABC122",
"ldhName": "example2.com",
"links":[
{
"value":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example2.com",
"rel":"self",
"href":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example2.com",
"type":"application/rdap+json"
},
{
"value":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example2.com",
"rel":"related",
"href":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example2.com",
"type":"application/rdap+json"
}
]
}
]
}
Figure 13: Unredacted RDAP Search Response
Example of the redacted version of an RDAP search response:
{
"rdapConformance": [
"rdap_level_0",
"redacted"
],
"domainSearchResults":[
{
"objectClassName": "domain",
"ldhName": "example1.com",
"links":[
{
"value":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example1.com",
"rel":"self",
"href":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example1.com",
"type":"application/rdap+json"
},
{
"value":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example1.com",
"rel":"related",
"href":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example1.com",
"type":"application/rdap+json"
}
],
"redacted": [
{
"name": {
"type": "Registry Domain ID"
},
"prePath": "$.domainSearchResults[0].handle",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "removal",
"reason": {
"type": "Server policy"
}
}
]
},
{
"objectClassName": "domain",
"ldhName": "example2.com",
"links":[
{
"value":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example2.com",
"rel":"self",
"href":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example2.com",
"type":"application/rdap+json"
},
{
"value":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example2.com",
"rel":"related",
"href":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example2.com",
"type":"application/rdap+json"
}
],
"redacted": [
{
"name": {
"description": "Registry Domain ID"
},
"prePath": "$.domainSearchResults[1].handle",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "removal",
"reason": {
"description": "Server policy"
}
}
]
}
]
}
Figure 14: Redacted RDAP Search Response
5. JSONPath Considerations
JSONPath [I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base] [RFC9535] is the default JSON path expression language.
This section includes JSONPath considerations for clients and
servers.
5.1. JSONPath Client Considerations
This section covers considerations for clients that receive responses
from servers using [I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base] JSONPath [RFC9535] to identify redacted RDAP
fields with the "prePath" "prePath", "postPath", or "postPath" "replacementPath" member of
redacted objects in the "redacted" member. The list of JSONPath
client considerations include:
1. When the server is using the Redaction By by Removal Method
(Section 3.1) or the Redaction by Replacement Value Method
(Section 3.4) with an alternative field value, the JSONPath
expression of the "prePath" member will not resolve successfully
with the redacted response. The client can key off the "name"
member for display logic related to the redaction.
5.2. JSONPath Server Considerations
This section covers considerations for servers using
[I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base] JSONPath
[RFC9535] to identify redacted RDAP fields with the
"prePath" "prePath",
"postPath", or "postPath" "replacementPath" member of redacted objects in the
"redacted" member. The list of JSONPath considerations include:
1. Use absolute paths with the '$' JSONPath element. An example is
"$.handle" for the "Registry Domain ID" in a lookup response or
"$.domainSearchResults[0].handle" in a search response.
2. Validate a JSONPath expression with the non-redacted RDAP
response when using the "prePath" member, where evaluating the
expression results in returning the redacted field.
3. Reference the removed object field when redacting an entire
object by the Redaction by Removal Method (Section 3.1), where
all of the object's child fields are explicitly removed. An
example is "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='administrative')]" for the
entire "Administrative Contact".
4. It is possible for there to be Use multiple bases for the redaction of certain content. For
example, if server policy is such that all administrative-role
entities are redacted and all technical-
role technical-role entities are
redacted, then an entity having both the administrative role and
the technical role could be redacted for two different reasons.
In this situation, a server is required to include at least one
"redacted" entry, but it should consider including a separate
"redacted" entry for each applicable basis for redaction, so as redaction to
clearly document the server policies that are relevant to
redaction in each instance.
5. Reference the removed field when using the Redaction by Removal
Method (Section 3.1). An example is "$.handle" for the "Registry
Domain ID".
6. Reference index 0 of the jCard [RFC7095] property array, which is the jCard [RFC7095]
"name" property, with a filter expression containing the name of
the field, field when redacting a jCard
[RFC7095] field using the Redaction by
Removal Method (Section 3.1). An example is "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registra
nt')].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='email')]" "$.entities[?(@.role
s[0]=='registrant')].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='email')]" for the
"Registrant Email".
7. Reference the jCard [RFC7095] field value or values redacted by array index
3 and greater, greater when redacting a jCard [RFC7095] field using the Redaction by
Empty Value Method (Section 3.2). The jCard
[RFC7095] property array index
3 and greater contain the property values, where the property
values set with an empty value are referenced directly in place
of the jCard [RFC7095] property name. Servers can then systematically
redact the jCard [RFC7095] field value or values based on the JSONPath expressions
expressions, and clients will directly know which jCard [RFC7095] property
values have been redacted. An example is "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='reg
istrant')].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='fn')][3]" "$.entities[?(@.roles[0
]=='registrant')].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='fn')][3]" for the
"Registrant Name" or "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].vcardArray[1][?
(@[0]=='adr')][3][5]" "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].vca
rdArray[1][?(@[0]=='adr')][3][5]" for the "Registrant Postal
Code".
8. RDAP extensions should define any special JSONPath considerations
required to identify redacted RDAP fields if these considerations
are insufficient.
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. RDAP Extensions Registry
IANA is requested to register has registered the following value in the RDAP
Extensions Registry: "RDAP Extensions"
registry:
Extension identifier: Identifier: redacted
Registry operator: Operator: Any
Published specification: This document.
Specification: RFC 9537
Contact: IESG IETF <iesg@ietf.org>
Intended usage: Usage: This extension identifies the redacted fields in an
RDAP response.
6.2. RDAP JSON Values Registry
Section 10.2 of [RFC9083] defines the RDAP "RDAP JSON Values Registry Values" registry
with
pre-defined predefined Type field values and the use of the "Expert Review" a registration policy defined in of Expert
Review [RFC8126]. This specification defines three new
RDAP JSON Values Registry Type field
values that can be used to register pre-defined predefined redacted name, reason,
and expression language values. IANA is instructed to update has updated the RDAP "RDAP JSON Values Registry
Values" registry to accept these additional type Type field values as
follows:
"redacted name": Redacted name being registered. The registered
redacted name is referenced using the "type" field of the
redacted "name" field.
"redacted reason": Redacted reason being registered. The registered
redacted reason is referenced using the "type" field of the
redacted "reason" field.
"redacted expression language": Redacted expression language being
registered. The registered redacted expression language is
referenced using the "pathLang" field.
The following values should be registered by the
IANA in has also listed this document as a reference for the RDAP "RDAP JSON Values Registry described in [RFC9083]:
Values" registry and has registered the following value:
Value: jsonpath
Type: redacted expression language
Description: JSON path expression language, as defined in draft-
ietf-jsonpath-base.
Registrant Name: RFC 9535.
Registrant: IETF
Registrant
Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
7. Implementation Status
Note to
Reference: RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to
RFC 7942 [RFC7942] before publication.
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
[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 [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and
working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the
benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols
more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this
information as they see fit".
7.1. 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. The
"redacted" array can be returned in the response to the domain lookup
that is the only available to anonymous users.
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
8. 9537
7. Security Considerations
The extension described in this document does not provide any
security services beyond those described by [RFC9083].
9.
10. References
10.1. Informative
8. References
[I-D.ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact]
Loffredo, M. and G. Brown, "Using JSContact in
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) JSON Responses",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-regext-rdap-
jscontact-16, 6 June 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-
rdap-jscontact-16>.
[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>.
10.2.
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base]
Gössner, S., Normington, G., and C. Bormann, "JSONPath:
Query expressions for JSON", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-21, 24 September 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
jsonpath-base-21>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[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>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
[RFC9082] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "Registration Data Access
Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", STD 95, RFC 9082,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9082, June 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9082>.
[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>.
Appendix A. Change History
A.1. Change from 00 to 01
1. Changed rdapConformance to use pointed "redacted_0.1" value to
support structural changes of the extension up to the target of
"redacted_1.0".
2. Updates based on the Gustavo Lozano feedback:
1. Updated the language to change the special treatment of jCard
to be more generic for future RDAP extensions that leverage
fixed length JSON arrays.
2. Added "RDAP extensions should define any special JSONPath
considerations required to identify redacted RDAP fields if
the these considerations are insufficient." to the JSONPath
Considerations section to generalize it.
3. Updates based on the Marc Blanchet feedback:
1. Added a reference to draft-ietf-regext-rdap-jscontact as an
example of an RDAP extension that is suited for the Redaction
by Removal Method based on the lack of dependency on
positional JSON arrays.
2. Added support for registered and unregistered (free-form)
redaction reasons by changing the "reason" property to be a
JSON object with the "type" and "description" properties.
The "type" property includes registration in the IANA JSON
Values Registry.
3. Added a "JSON Values Registry" section in the IANA
Considersations section to define the "redaction reason" JSON
Values Registry Type values to support the registration of
redaction reasons.
4. Updates based on the Mario Loffredo feedback:
1. Added support for registered and unregistered (free-form)
redaction names by changing the "reason" property to be a
JSON object with the "type" and "description" properties.
The "type" property includes registration in the IANA JSON
Values Registry.
2. Added a "JSON Values Registry" section in the IANA
Considersations section to define the "redaction name" JSON
Values Registry Type values to support the registration of
redaction names.
3. Added a JSONPath Considerations item associated with handling
entities with multiple roles.
4. Added language to restrict the extension to responses.
A.2. Change from 01 to 02
1. Updates to add support for RDAP search responses:
1. Replaced "RDAP lookup response" with "RDAP response"
throughout the draft to expand the scope to include search.
2. Updated the description in the second paragraph of the
Introduction to cover both a lookup response and a search
response.
3. Added an example of the use of an absoluate path for a search
response to the "JSONPath Considerations" section.
4. Added a description of the placement of the "redacted" member
in a lookup response and a search response in the ""redacted"
Member" section.
5. Added an example of an unredacted search response and a
redacted search response in the ""redacted" Member" section.
A.3. Change from 02 to 03
1. Fixed mismatch of the extension identifier, which was updated to
"redacted_0.1" throughout the draft based on feedback from Mario
Loffredo.
2. Added the JSONPath Considerations item associated with redacting
fields for multiple entities with the same role based on
implementation feedback from Mario Loffredo.
3. Added the Implementation Status section that includes the server
implementation by Mario Loffredo.
4. Added use of numbered figures for easy reference for JSON Values
Registry registrations.
5. Updated the example unredacted and redacted lookup responses to
include the "objectClassName" and "handle" members.
6. Changed RFC7482 and RFC7483 references to RFC9082 and RFC9083,
respectively.
A.4. Change from 03 to 04
1. Changed the extension identifier to be "redacted" instead of a
versioned value, which will be leveraged for both the
rdapConformance value and the JSON Values.
2. Changed the RDAP Conformance to be "redacted_level_0.2", which
leveraged the extension identifier as a prefix along with
"_level_" and a pointed version number. The version number will
become "1.0" once the draft passes WGLC.
3. Added the Redaction by Replacement Value Method.
A.5. Change from 04 to 05
1. Update the RDAP Extensions Registry entries to include the
identifier that is used for the RDAP conformance value
[RFC9535] Gössner, S., Ed., Normington, G., Ed., and to
include the "redacted" prefix indentifier to use C. Bormann,
Ed., "JSONPath: Query Expressions for the JSON
response member.
2. Changed the RDAP Conformance to be "redacted_level_0_3", which is
registered in the RDAP Extensions Registry. The RDAP Conformance
value will become "redacted_level_1" once the draft passes WGLC.
A.6. Change from 05 to 06
1. Fixed a couple nits.
2. Updated the Redaction by Replacement Value Method email web form
examples to use the "contact-uri" jCard property of JSON", RFC 8605.
A.7. Change from 06 to 07
1. Added the optional replacementPath child member for use with the
Redaction by Replacement Value Method.
A.8. Change from 07 to 08
1. Updates based on the Rick Wilhelm feedback:
1. Updated the definition of a redacted RDAP field in the
Introduction section.
2. Updated the reference to three methods instead of two in the
Redaction Methods section.
3. Created a new paragraph for the example in the Redaction by
Removal Method section.
4. Explicitly specified one or more redacted fields for
inclusion of the "redacted" member in the "redacted" Member
section.
5. Updated the description of the "method" member in the
"redacted" Member section.
A.9. Change from 08 to 09
1. Updated the RDAP extensions Registry registration and RDAP
conformance to match the working group consensus that does not
include a version with "redacted".
A.10. Change from 09 to 10
1. Updates based on the Pawel Kowalik feedback:
1. Changed "placeholder text value will not match the format
requirements" to "placeholder text value may not match the
format requirements" in Section 3.
2. Changed the "path" member OPTIONAL 9535,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9535, February 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9535>.
8.2. Informative References
[RDAP-JSCONTACT]
Loffredo, M. and added "The "path"
member MUST be set when the redacted field does exist G. Brown, "Using JSContact in the
redacted response" to cover when it's required.
3. Added the definition of the "redacted expression language"
Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) JSON Values Registry Type in the IANA Considerations and pre-
registered the "jsonpath" "redacted expression language"
value.
4. In the definition of the "path" member, added clarification
whether the "path" member expression refers to the pre-
redacted response field or the redacted response field based
on the redaction method.
5. Replaced "The Redaction by Removal Method MUST NOT be used to
remove a field using the position in a fixed length array to
signal the redacted field" with "The Redaction by Removal
Method MUST NOT be used to remove an element of an array
where the position of the element in the array determines
semantic meaning" Responses",
Work in Section 3.1.
6. Added the "JSONPath Client Considerations" and "JSONPath
Server Considerations" subsections to the "JSONPath
Considerations" section.
2. Updates based on the Mario Loffredo feedback:
1. Revised Figure Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-regext-rdap-
jscontact-17, 7 to reference the "email" property and the
"contract-uri" property instead of the value elements of the
properties.
2. Rephrased the sentence in section 4.2 to 'The "redacted"
member contains an array of objects with the following child
members'.
3. Added the Redaction by Partial Value Method for redaction of
a portion of a formatted property, such as the jCard "fn" and
"label" properties.
A.11. Change from 10 to 11
1. Updated Abstract and first sentence of Introduction to "This
document describes an RDAP extension for specifying methods of
redaction of RDAP responses and explicitly identifying redacted
RDAP response fields, using JSONPath as the default expression
language.", based on feedback by Pawel Kowalik.
2. Changed "path" member to a "prePath" and "postPath" member to
indicate whether the path expression applies to the pre-redacted
or post-redacted response, based on feedback by Pawel Kowalik.
A.12. Change from 11 to 12
1. Updates based on the Andy Newton feedback:
1. Added section "The resulting redacted RDAP response MUST
comply with the RDAP RFCs, such as [RFC9083]" as second
sentence of Section 3.
2. Updates based on the Tom Harrison feedback:
1. Added clarification in Section 2 "Conventions Used in This
Document" that the JSONPath expressions in the examples are
for illustration purposes with single-role entities and the
exact expressions to use by the server are out-of-scope.
2. Replaced consideration #4 "When an entity has multiple
roles..." in Section 5.2 "JSONPath Server Considerations"
with the recommended language starting with "It is possible
for there to be muliple bases for redaction..."
3. Revised the sentence "The client can first key off the "name"
member for display logic and utilize a template RDAP response
overlaid with the redacted response to successfully resolve
the JSONPath expression." in Section 5.1 "JSONPath Client
Considers" to "The client can key off the "name" member for
display logic related to the redaction.".
4. Replaced "type" with "description" for the example redaction
"name" and "reason" members, so not to infer that they are
being registered for use.
5. Changed "Two new JSON Values Registry Type field values are
used to register pre-defined redacted name and reason values"
in Section 6.2 "JSON Values Registry" to "Three new JSON
Values Registry Type field values are used to register pre-
defined redacted name, reason, and expression language
values".
3. Updates based on validating each of the draft examples:
1. Added missing comma between the "Administrative Contact" and
"Billing Contact" "redacted" members.
2. Removed consideration #5 in Section 5.2 "JSONPath Server
Considerations" since the use of the JSONPath expression
"$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='technical')][0]" is not valid and
the exact JSONPath expression to use is out-of-scope.
A.13. Change from 12 to 13
1. Updates based on the Jasdip Singh feedback:
1. In Section 1, replaced the sentence "The redacted JSON fields
will either be removed or have empty values in the RDAP
response" with "The redacted JSON fields will either be
removed, have empty values, have partial values, or be
replaced in the RDAP response.".
2. In Section 3, changed the reference of three categories to
four categories.
3. In Section 3.1, changed ", which is the preferred method" to
", which is the default method" to clarify the Removal Method
as the default redaction method.
4. In Section 4.2, updated the sentence to read "The "redacted"
member is included as a member of the object instance in a
lookup response, for the object classes defined in [RFC9083],
and as a member of the array of object instances in a search
response.".
5. In Section 4.2, explicitly defined the "name" member as
REQUIRED".
A.14. Change from 13 to 14
1. Replaced RFC 7483 reference with RFC 9083 based on the Document
Shepherd review by Andy Newton.
2. Replaced the "Registrant Name" "IESG" value with "IETF" for the
"RDAP JSON Values Registry" registrations.
3. Updates based on the Murray Kucherawy AD evaluation feedback:
1. Combined sentences on the use of placeholder text in
Section 3 "Redaction Methods" for clarification.
2. Changed the two SHOULDs to MUSTs in Section 3.2 "Redaction by
Empty Value Method".
3. Changed "alternate" to "alternative" in Section 3.4
"Redaction by Replacement Value Method".
4. Changed "JSON expression" to "JSON path expression" in
Section 4.2 "
5. Changed references of "JSON Values Registry" to "RDAP JSON
Values Registry" to match the IANA registry name.
A.15. Change from 14 to 15
1. Based on feedback from Paul Wouters, moved the Security
Considerations language to Section 4.2 ""redacted" Member", since
exclusion of a "redacted" child member due to privacy is a
feature. The Security Considerations section was made generic.
2. Revised the RDAP JSON Values Registry IANA Considerations used to
register pre-register the pre-defined redacted name, redacted
reason, and redacted expression language values based on Scott
Hollenbeck's expert review feedback.
A.16. Change from 15 to 16
1. Updates based on feedback from Roman Danyliw:
1. Updated "Redaction in RDAP can be handled in multiple ways.
The resulting redacted RDAP response MUST comply with the
RDAP RFCs, such as [RFC9083]" to "Redaction in RDAP can be
handled in multiple ways. The resulting redacted RDAP
response MUST comply with the format defined in the RDAP RFCs
with the RDAP RFCs, such as [RFC9083] and updates"
2. Add "The server MAY choose to publish a redaction policy
describing how this extension is implemented for their
constituency. The contents of such a policy are outside the
scope of this specification." to Section 4.2 ""redacted"
Member". December 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-regext-
rdap-jscontact-17>.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the following persons for their feedback
and suggestions: Marc Blanchet, Tom Harrison, Scott Hollenbeck, Pawel
Kowalik, Mario Loffredo, Gustavo Lozano, Andy Newton, Jasdip Singh,
and Rick Wilhelm.
Authors' Addresses
James Gould
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
United States of America
Email: jgould@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisigninc.com http://www.verisign.com
David Smith
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
United States of America
Email: dsmith@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisigninc.com http://www.verisign.com
Jody Kolker
GoDaddy Inc.
14455 N. Hayden Rd. Rd., #219
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
United States of America
Email: jkolker@godaddy.com
URI: http://www.godaddy.com
Roger Carney
GoDaddy Inc.
14455 N. Hayden Rd. Rd., #219
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
United States of America
Email: rcarney@godaddy.com
URI: http://www.godaddy.com