--- 1/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-02.txt 2022-03-03 13:13:20.081801634 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-03.txt 2022-03-03 13:13:20.145803254 -0800 @@ -1,21 +1,21 @@ Network Working Group J.G. Gould Internet-Draft D.S. Smith Intended status: Standards Track VeriSign, Inc. -Expires: 22 May 2022 J.K. Kolker +Expires: 3 September 2022 J.K. Kolker R.C. Carney GoDaddy Inc. - 18 November 2021 + 2 March 2022 Redacted Fields in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Response - draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-02 + draft-ietf-regext-rdap-redacted-03 Abstract This document describes an RDAP extension for 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 @@ -24,77 +24,80 @@ 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 22 May 2022. + This Internet-Draft will expire on 3 September 2022. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + 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 Simplified BSD License text - as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are - provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. + 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Redacted RDAP Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 4.1. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 4.1. RDAP Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. "redacted" Member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 5. JSONPath Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 - 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 6.1. RDAP Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 6.2. JSON Values Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 9.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 9.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 5. JSONPath Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 6.1. RDAP Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 6.2. JSON Values Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 7.1. IIT-CNR/Registro.it RDAP Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 10.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 10.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 + A.1. Change from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 + A.2. Change from 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + A.3. Change from 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 1. Introduction This document describes an RDAP extension for explicitly identifying redacted RDAP response fields, using JSONPath as the default expression language. A redacted RDAP field is one that has data removed from the RDAP response due to 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 [RFC7483], or + 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 reasons for data or field absence. - In [RFC7482] RDAP supports both lookup and search queries, where a + 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]. @@ -113,21 +116,21 @@ 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 will 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 [RFC7483], include a mix of JSON + 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 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 @@ -160,20 +163,22 @@ "redacted": [ { "name": { "type": "Administrative Contact" }, "path": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='administrative')]", "method": "removal" } ] + Figure 1: Redacted Administrative Contact + The Redaction by Removal Method MUST NOT be used to remove a field using the position in a fixed length array to signal the redacted field. For example, removal of an individual data field in jCard [RFC7095] will result in a non-conformant jCard [RFC7095] array definition. 3.2. Redaction by Empty Value Method The Redaction by Empty Value Method is when a redacted field is not removed, but its value is set to an empty value, such as "" for a @@ -196,55 +201,61 @@ An example of the redacted field "fn" jCard property using the Redaction by Empty Value Method: [ "fn", {}, "text", "" ] + Figure 2: Redacted "fn" jCard Property using Redaction by Empty + Value Method + An example of the "redacted" member for the redacted "fn" jCard property value, which is array position 3: "redacted": [ { "name": { "type": "Registrant Name" }, "path": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registrant')]. vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='fn')][3]", "pathLang": "jsonpath", "method": "emptyValue", "reason": { "type": "Server policy" } } ] -4. Redacted RDAP Response + Figure 3: Redacted Registrant Name using Array Position +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 ([RFC7483]) value of "redacted_0.1". The information + rdapConformance ([RFC9083]) value of "redacted_0.1". The information needed to register this value in the RDAP Extensions Registry is described in Section 6.1. Example rdapConformance member with the redacted extension: "rdapConformance": [ "rdap_level_0", - "redacted_0" + "redacted_0.1" ] + Figure 4: rdapConformance with Redacted Extension + 4.2. "redacted" Member The "redacted" member MUST be added to the RDAP response when there are 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 redacted objects with the following child members: @@ -265,40 +276,56 @@ default value of "jsonpath" for JSONPath ([I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base]). Other JSON path expression languages MAY be used based on server policy. "method": OPTIONAL redaction method used with "removal" indicating the Redaction By Removed Method (Section 3.1) and "emptyValue" indicating the Redaction by Empty Value Method (Section 3.2), with the default value of "removal". "reason": OPTIONAL human readable reason(s) for the redacted field - in the language defined by the [RFC7483] "lang" member. The - default language is "en" if the [RFC7483] "lang" member is not + 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: { "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" } ], @@ -403,20 +430,22 @@ }, "uri", "tel:+1.7035555555;ext=1234" ] ] ] } ] }, { + "objectClassName": "entity", + "handle": "XXXX", "roles": [ "registrant" ], "vcardArray": [ "vcard", [ [ "version", {}, "text", @@ -468,20 +496,22 @@ { "type": "fax" }, "uri", "tel:+1-555-555-5321" ] ] ] }, { + "objectClassName": "entity", + "handle": "YYYY", "roles": [ "technical" ], "vcardArray": [ "vcard", [ [ "version", {}, "text", @@ -530,22 +560,25 @@ [ "tel", { "type": "fax" }, "uri", "tel:+1-555-555-4321" ] ] ] + }, { + "objectClassName": "entity", + "handle": "ZZZZ", "roles": [ "administrative" ], "vcardArray": [ "vcard", [ [ "version", {}, "text", @@ -594,20 +628,51 @@ [ "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" @@ -618,32 +683,50 @@ } ], "status": [ "server delete prohibited", "server update prohibited", "server transfer prohibited", "client transfer prohibited" ] } + Figure 5: Unredacted RDAP Lookup Response + Example redacted version of an RDAP lookup response: { "rdapConformance": [ "rdap_level_0", "redacted_0" ], "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" } ], @@ -748,20 +832,22 @@ }, "uri", "tel:+1.7035555555" ] ] ] } ] }, { + "objectClassName": "entity", + "handle": "XXXX", "roles": [ "registrant" ], "vcardArray": [ "vcard", [ [ "version", {}, "text", @@ -784,20 +870,22 @@ "", "QC", "", "Canada" ] ] ] ] }, { + "objectClassName": "entity", + "handle": "YYYY", "roles": [ "technical" ], "vcardArray": [ "vcard", [ [ "version", {}, "text", @@ -976,42 +1066,55 @@ }, "path": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='technical')]. vcardArray[1][?(@[1].type=='voice')]", "method": "removal", "reason": { "type": "Server policy" } }, { "name": { - "description": "Technical Fax" + "type": "Technical Fax" }, "path": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='technical')]. vcardArray[1][?(@[1].type=='fax')]", "reason": { "type": "Client request", "description": "Client requested the field redacted" } }, { "name": { - "type": "Administrative Contact" + "description": "Administrative Contact" }, "path": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='administrative')]", "method": "removal", "reason": { "description": "Refer to the technical contact" } } + { + "name": { + "description": "Billing Contact" + }, + "path": "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='billing')]", + "method": "removal", + "reason": { + "description": "Refer to the registrant contact" + } + } ] + } + Figure 6: Redacted RDAP Lookup Response + Example unredacted version of an RDAP search response: { "rdapConformance": [ "rdap_level_0" ], "domainSearchResults":[ { "objectClassName": "domain", "handle": "ABC121", @@ -1046,26 +1149,28 @@ "value":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example2.com", "rel":"related", "href":"https://example.com/rdap/domain/example2.com", "type":"application/rdap+json" } ] } ] } + Figure 7: Unredacted RDAP Search Response + Example redacted version of an RDAP search response: { "rdapConformance": [ "rdap_level_0", - "redacted_0" + "redacted_0.1" ], "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", @@ -1119,20 +1225,22 @@ "method": "removal", "reason": { "type": "Server policy" } } ] } ] } + Figure 8: Redacted RDAP Search Response + 5. JSONPath Considerations JSONPath [I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base] is the default JSON path expression language. This section covers considerations for servers using [I-D.ietf-jsonpath-base] to identify redacted RDAP fields with the "path" 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 @@ -1148,49 +1257,55 @@ 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. Reference the removed field when using the Redaction by Removal + 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 "$.handle" for the "Registry Domain ID". - 6. Reference index 0 of the jCard [RFC7095] property array, which is + 7. Reference index 0 of the jCard [RFC7095] property array, which is the jCard [RFC7095] "name" property, with a filter expression containing the name of the field, when redacting a jCard [RFC7095] field using the Redaction by Removal Method (Section 3.1). An example is "$.entities[?(@.roles[0]=='registra nt')].vcardArray[1][?(@[0]=='email')]" for the "Registrant Email". - 7. Reference jCard [RFC7095] field value or values redacted by array + 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". - 8. RDAP extensions should define any special JSONPath considerations + 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_0.1 Registry operator: Any Published specification: This document. Contact: IESG Intended usage: This extension identifies the redacted fields in an @@ -1204,98 +1319,144 @@ 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. "redacted reason": Redacted reason being registered. The registered redacted reason is referenced using the "type" field of the redacted "reason" field. -7. Security Considerations +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". + +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. -8. Acknowledgements +9. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the following persons for their feedback and suggestions: Marc Blanchet, Scott Hollenbeck, Mario Loffredo, Gustavo Lozano, and Rick Wilhelm. -9. References +10. References -9.1. Informative 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-03, 22 October 2021, - . + jscontact-08, 15 February 2022, + . -9.2. Normative References +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-02, 25 October 2021, - . + Draft, draft-ietf-jsonpath-base-03, 16 January 2022, + . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC6350] Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350, DOI 10.17487/RFC6350, August 2011, . [RFC7095] Kewisch, P., "jCard: The JSON Format for vCard", RFC 7095, DOI 10.17487/RFC7095, January 2014, . - [RFC7482] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "Registration Data Access - Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", RFC 7482, - DOI 10.17487/RFC7482, March 2015, - . - - [RFC7483] Newton, A. and S. Hollenbeck, "JSON Responses for the - Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)", RFC 7483, - DOI 10.17487/RFC7483, March 2015, - . + [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, + . [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, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017, . + [RFC9082] Hollenbeck, S. and A. Newton, "Registration Data Access + Protocol (RDAP) Query Format", STD 95, RFC 9082, + DOI 10.17487/RFC9082, June 2021, + . + [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, . 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 @@ -1329,56 +1490,67 @@ 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. + 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