Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted
Network Working Group J.G. Gould
Internet-Draft D.S. Smith
Intended status: Standards Track VeriSign, Inc.
Expires: 25 June 2023 J.K. Kolker
R.C. Carney
GoDaddy Inc.
22 December 2022
Redacted Fields in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Response
draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-11
Abstract
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.
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 25 June 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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.
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Redaction Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1. JSONPath Client Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2. JSONPath Server Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.1. RDAP Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.2. JSON Values Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
7.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it RDAP Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
10.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
10.2. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
A.4. Change from 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A.9. Change from 08 to 09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A.10. Change from 09 to 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
A.11. Change from 10 to 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
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
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
[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 reasons for data
or field absence.
In [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], is used as the
default expression language to reference RDAP fields that have been
redacted. The redacted JSON fields will either be removed or have
empty values 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. For
instance, the JSONPath expressions are broken out into multiple lines
when required for illustration.
3. Redaction Methods
Redaction in RDAP can be handled in multiple ways. The use of
placeholder text for the values of the RDAP fields, such as the
placeholder text "XXXX", MUST NOT be used for redaction. A
placeholder text value may not match the format requirements of each
of the RDAP fields and provides 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 / jCard
[RFC7095] "adr" property that defines a sequence of address
components. According to [RFC6350], when an "ADR" property component
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
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 three categories defined
in the following sub-sections.
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 preferred method. The Redaction
by Removal Method can be done for all RDAP response fields other than
response fields using the position in an array to signal the redacted
field (e.g., the JSON arrays used with jCard [RFC7095]). RDAP
extensions such as JSContact in Registration Data Access Protocol
(RDAP) JSON Responses [I-D.ietf-regext-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": {
"type": "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.
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
3.2. Redaction by Empty Value Method
The Redaction by Empty Value Method is when a redacted field is not
removed, but its value is set to an empty value, such as "" for a
jCard [RFC7095] Text ("text") property or null for a 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 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 SHOULD 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 SHOULD
use the Redaction by Removal Method (Section 3.1) to redact the
entire property. The required jCard [RFC7095] "fn" property, defined
in 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] 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:
[
"fn",
{},
"text",
""
]
Figure 2: Redacted "fn" jCard property using Redaction by Empty
Value Method
An example of the "redacted" member for the redacted "fn" jCard
property value, which is array position 3:
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
"redacted": [
{
"name": {
"type": "Registrant Name"
},
"postPath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='fn')][3]",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "emptyValue",
"reason": {
"type": "Server policy"
}
}
]
Figure 3: Redacted Registrant Name using Array Position
3.3. Redaction by Partial Value Method
The Redaction by Partial Value Method is when a redacted field is not
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 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 of [RFC7095]
that redacts "123 Maple Ave\nSuite 90001\n":
["adr",
{
"type":"home",
"label":"Vancouver\nBC\n1239\n"
},
"text",
[
"", "", "", "", "", "", ""
]
]
Figure 4: Redacted "label" jCard property
An example of the "redacted" member for the redacted "label" jCard
property value, based on Figure 15 of [RFC7095]:
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
"redacted": [
{
"name": {
"type": "Home Address Label"
},
"postPath": "$.vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='adr')][1].label",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "partialValue",
"reason": {
"type": "Server policy"
}
}
]
Figure 5: Redacted Label using the Redaction by Partial Value Method
3.4. Redaction by Replacement Value Method
The Redaction by Replacement Value Method is when a redacted field is
not removed, but its value is replaced with a different value, such
as protecting the "email" jCard [RFC7095] property value with an
anonymized email "text" value or the use of an alternate "uri" value
to a web form. Replacing a property value is a form of redaction,
since it protects the true property value for privacy reasons.
An example of the redacted "email" jCard property using the Redaction
by Replacement Value Method with an anonymized email:
[
"email",
{},
"text",
"anonymized123@example.com"
]
Figure 6: Redacted "email" jCard property using Redaction by
Replacement Value Method with an anonymized email
An example of the "redacted" member for the redacted registrant
"email" jCard property value with an anonymized "text" value.
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
"redacted": [
{
"name": {
"type": "Registrant Email"
},
"postPath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='email')][3]",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "replacementValue",
}
]
Figure 7: Redacted Email using Replacement Value with an
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 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
to a web form:
"redacted": [
{
"name": {
"type": "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",
}
]
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
Figure 9: Redacted Email using Replacement Value with a "contact-
uri" jCard property to a 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]) 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 class in a lookup response, such as the object
classes defined in [RFC9083], and as a member of the object instances
in a search response, such as the object instances defined in
[RFC9083]. The "redacted" member contains an array of objects with
the following child members:
"name": A 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 expression referencing a redacted JSON
field in the pre-redacted response. The "prePath" member MAY be
set when the redacted field does not exist in the redacted
response for the Redaction 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 expression referencing a redacted JSON
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
field in the redacted (post-redacted) response. 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 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]). Other JSON path expression languages
registered with the "redacted expression language" JSON Values
Registry Type MAY be used based on server policy.
"method": OPTIONAL redaction method used; with one of the following
values:
* "removal" indicating the Redaction 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. (Section 3.4)
The default value is "removal" when not provided.
"reason": OPTIONAL human readable reason(s) for the redacted field
in the language defined by the [RFC9083] "lang" member. The
default language is "en" if the [RFC9083] "lang" 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 unredacted version of an RDAP lookup response:
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
{
"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"
}
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
],
"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"
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
},
"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",
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
"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",
{
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
"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",
[
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
"",
"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"
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
],
[
"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"
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
]
]
]
},
{
"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"
}
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
],
"status": [
"server delete prohibited",
"server update prohibited",
"server transfer prohibited",
"client transfer prohibited"
]
}
Figure 11: Unredacted RDAP Lookup Response
Example 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"
}
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
],
"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"
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
],
[
"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",
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
{
"type": "voice"
},
"uri",
"tel:+1.7035555555"
]
]
]
}
]
},
{
"objectClassName": "entity",
"handle": "XXXX",
"roles": [
"registrant"
],
"vcardArray": [
"vcard",
[
[
"version",
{},
"text",
"4.0"
],
[
"fn",
{},
"text",
""
],
[
"adr",
{},
"text",
[
"",
"",
"",
"",
"QC",
"",
"Canada"
]
]
]
]
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
},
{
"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": [
{
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
"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": {
"type": "Registry Domain ID"
},
"prePath": "$.handle",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "removal",
"reason": {
"type": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"type": "Registrant Name"
},
"postPath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='fn')][3]",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "emptyValue",
"reason": {
"type": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"type": "Registrant Organization"
},
"prePath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='org')]",
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "removal",
"reason": {
"type": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"type": "Registrant Street"
},
"postPath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='adr')][3][:3]",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "emptyValue",
"reason": {
"type": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"type": "Registrant City"
},
"postPath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='adr')][3][3]",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "emptyValue",
"reason": {
"type": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"type": "Registrant Postal Code"
},
"postPath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='adr')][3][5]",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "emptyValue",
"reason": {
"type": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"type": "Registrant Email"
},
"prePath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='email')]",
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
"method": "removal",
"reason": {
"type": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"type": "Registrant Phone"
},
"prePath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[1].type=='voice')]",
"method": "removal",
"reason": {
"type": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"type": "Technical Name"
},
"postPath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='technical')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='fn')][3]",
"method": "emptyValue",
"reason": {
"type": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"type": "Technical Email"
},
"prePath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='technical')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='email')]",
"method": "removal",
"reason": {
"type": "Server policy"
}
},
{
"name": {
"type": "Technical Phone"
},
"prePath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='technical')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[1].type=='voice')]",
"method": "removal",
"reason": {
"type": "Server policy"
}
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
},
{
"name": {
"type": "Technical Fax"
},
"prePath": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='technical')].
vcardArray[1][?(@[1].type=='fax')]",
"reason": {
"type": "Client request",
"description": "Client requested the field redacted"
}
},
{
"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 unredacted version of an RDAP search response:
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
{
"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
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
Example 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": "$.domainSearchResults[0].handle",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "removal",
"reason": {
"type": "Server policy"
}
}
]
},
{
"objectClassName": "domain",
"ldhName": "example2.com",
"links":[
{
"value":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example2.com",
"rel":"self",
"href":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example2.com",
"type":"application/rdap+json"
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
},
{
"value":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example2.com",
"rel":"related",
"href":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example2.com",
"type":"application/rdap+json"
}
],
"redacted": [
{
"name": {
"type": "Registry Domain ID"
},
"prePath": "$.domainSearchResults[1].handle",
"pathLang": "jsonpath",
"method": "removal",
"reason": {
"type": "Server policy"
}
}
]
}
]
}
Figure 14: Redacted RDAP Search Response
5. JSONPath Considerations
JSONPath [I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base] 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] to identify redacted RDAP
fields with the "prePath" or "postPath" member of redacted objects in
the "redacted" member. The list of JSONPath client considerations
include:
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
1. When the server is using the Redaction By Removal Method
(Section 3.1) or the Redaction by Replacement Value Method
(Section 3.4) with an alternate field value, the JSONPath
expression of the "prePath" member will not resolve successfully
with the redacted response. 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.
5.2. JSONPath Server Considerations
This section covers considerations for servers using
[I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base] to identify redacted RDAP fields with the
"prePath" or "postPath" 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. When an entity has multiple roles, include "redacted" members for
each role using the role index. This will result in duplicate
"redacted" members, but will enable the client to treat redaction
consistently when there is a single role per entity or multiple
roles per entity. An example is when the "roles" member has the
value '["registrant","administrative"]', redacting the "name"
member of the entity will result in two "redacted" members with
the JSONPath expressions "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')]
.vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='fn')][3]" and "$.entities[?(@.roles[1]=='
administrative')].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='fn')][3]".
5. When there are multiple entities with the same role, include
"redacted" members for each entity using the entity index instead
of the role. A JSONPath can be created that identifies the
entity based on an index of a role selector nodelist, such as
"$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='technical')][0]" for the first entity
with the "technical" role. Using the entity index, such as
"$.entities[1]", is simpler and recommended.
6. Reference the removed field when using the Redaction by Removal
Method (Section 3.1). An example is "$.handle" for the "Registry
Domain ID".
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
7. Reference index 0 of the jCard [RFC7095] property array, which is
the jCard [RFC7095] "name" property, with a filter expression
containing the name of the field, when redacting a jCard
[RFC7095] field using the Redaction by Removal Method
(Section 3.1). An example is "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registra
nt')].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='email')]" for the "Registrant
Email".
8. Reference jCard [RFC7095] field value or values redacted by array
index 3 and 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 jCard [RFC7095]
field value or values based on the JSONPath expressions and
clients will directly know which jCard [RFC7095] property values
have been redacted. An example is "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='reg
istrant')].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='fn')][3]" for the "Registrant
Name" or "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')].vcardArray[1][?
(@[0]=='adr')][3][5]" for the "Registrant Postal Code".
9. 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 the following value in the RDAP
Extensions Registry:
Extension identifier: redacted
Registry operator: Any
Published specification: This document.
Contact: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Intended usage: This extension identifies the redacted fields in an
RDAP response.
6.2. JSON Values Registry
Section 10.2 of [RFC9083] defines the JSON Values Registry with pre-
defined Type field values and the use of the "Expert Review" policy
defined in [RFC8126]. Two new JSON Values Registry Type field values
are used to register pre-defined redacted name and reason values:
"redacted name": Redacted name being registered. The registered
redacted name is referenced using the "type" field of the
redacted "name" field.
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
"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 the RDAP
JSON Values Registry described in [RFC7483]:
Value: jsonpath
Type: redacted expression language
Description: JSON path expression language, as defined in draft-
ietf-jsonpath-base.
Registrant Name: IESG
Registrant Contact Information: iesg@ietf.org
7. Implementation Status
Note to 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
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 [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".
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
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. Security Considerations
The server including a redacted signal provides an unauthorized
client additional information related to the existence of data.
Servers MAY exclude the redacted members for RDAP fields that are
considered a privacy issue in providing a data existence signal.
9. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the following persons for their feedback
and suggestions: Marc Blanchet, Scott Hollenbeck, Pawel Kowalik,
Mario Loffredo, Gustavo Lozano, and Rick Wilhelm.
10. References
10.1. Informative 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-15, 10 December 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-
jscontact-15.txt>.
[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>.
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
10.2. 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-08, 21 November 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-
08.txt>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
[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.
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
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.
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
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 and to
include the "redacted" prefix indentifier to use 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 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".
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
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 and added "The "path"
member MUST be set when the redacted field does exist in the
redacted response" to cover when it's required.
3. Added the definition of the "redacted expression language"
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" 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 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.
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Redacted Fields in RDAP December 2022
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
David Smith
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
United States of America
Email: dsmith@verisign.com
URI: http://www.verisigninc.com
Jody Kolker
GoDaddy Inc.
14455 N. Hayden 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. #219
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
United States of America
Email: rcarney@godaddy.com
URI: http://www.godaddy.com
Gould, et al. Expires 25 June 2023 [Page 40]
