[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

Internet Engineering Task Force                           A. Wright, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational                           H. Andrews, Ed.
Expires: June 11, 2021
                                                          B. Hutton, Ed.
                                                        December 8, 2020


 JSON Schema Validation: A Vocabulary for Structural Validation of JSON
                draft-bhutton-json-schema-validation-00

Abstract

   JSON Schema (application/schema+json) has several purposes, one of
   which is JSON instance validation.  This document specifies a
   vocabulary for JSON Schema to describe the meaning of JSON documents,
   provide hints for user interfaces working with JSON data, and to make
   assertions about what a valid document must look like.

Note to Readers

   The issues list for this draft can be found at <https://github.com/
   json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues>.

   For additional information, see <https://json-schema.org/>.

   To provide feedback, use this issue tracker, the communication
   methods listed on the homepage, or email the document editors.

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 June 11, 2021.






Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Validation of String Instances  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Validation of Numeric Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Regular Expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Meta-Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  A Vocabulary for Structural Validation  . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.1.  Validation Keywords for Any Instance Type . . . . . . . .   6
       6.1.1.  type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       6.1.2.  enum  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       6.1.3.  const . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.2.  Validation Keywords for Numeric Instances (number and
           integer)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       6.2.1.  multipleOf  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       6.2.2.  maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       6.2.3.  exclusiveMaximum  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       6.2.4.  minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       6.2.5.  exclusiveMinimum  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.3.  Validation Keywords for Strings . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       6.3.1.  maxLength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       6.3.2.  minLength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       6.3.3.  pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.4.  Validation Keywords for Arrays  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       6.4.1.  maxItems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       6.4.2.  minItems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       6.4.3.  uniqueItems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       6.4.4.  maxContains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       6.4.5.  minContains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.5.  Validation Keywords for Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9



Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


       6.5.1.  maxProperties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       6.5.2.  minProperties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       6.5.3.  required  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       6.5.4.  dependentRequired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Vocabularies for Semantic Content With "format" . . . . . . .  10
     7.1.  Foreword  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.2.  Implementation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.2.1.  Format-Annotation Vocabulary  . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.2.2.  Format-Assertion Vocabulary . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       7.2.3.  Custom format attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.3.  Defined Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       7.3.1.  Dates, Times, and Duration  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       7.3.2.  Email Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       7.3.3.  Hostnames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       7.3.4.  IP Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       7.3.5.  Resource Identifiers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       7.3.6.  uri-template  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       7.3.7.  JSON Pointers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       7.3.8.  regex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  A Vocabulary for the Contents of String-Encoded Data  . . . .  17
     8.1.  Foreword  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.2.  Implementation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.3.  contentEncoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.4.  contentMediaType  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.5.  contentSchema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.6.  Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   9.  A Vocabulary for Basic Meta-Data Annotations  . . . . . . . .  20
     9.1.  "title" and "description" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     9.2.  "default" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     9.3.  "deprecated"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     9.4.  "readOnly" and "writeOnly"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     9.5.  "examples"  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Appendix A.  Keywords Moved from Validation to Core . . . . . . .  26
   Appendix B.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Appendix C.  ChangeLog  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30

1.  Introduction

   JSON Schema can be used to require that a given JSON document (an
   instance) satisfies a certain number of criteria.  These criteria are
   asserted by using keywords described in this specification.  In
   addition, a set of keywords is also defined to assist in interactive
   user interface instance generation.



Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


   This specification will use the concepts, syntax, and terminology
   defined by the JSON Schema core [json-schema] specification.

2.  Conventions and Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   This specification uses the term "container instance" to refer to
   both array and object instances.  It uses the term "children
   instances" to refer to array elements or object member values.

   Elements in an array value are said to be unique if no two elements
   of this array are equal [json-schema].

3.  Overview

   JSON Schema validation asserts constraints on the structure of
   instance data.  An instance location that satisfies all asserted
   constraints is then annotated with any keywords that contain non-
   assertion information, such as descriptive metadata and usage hints.
   If all locations within the instance satisfy all asserted
   constraints, then the instance is said to be valid against the
   schema.

   Each schema object is independently evaluated against each instance
   location to which it applies.  This greatly simplifies the
   implementation requirements for validators by ensuring that they do
   not need to maintain state across the document-wide validation
   process.

   This specification defines a set of assertion keywords, as well as a
   small vocabulary of metadata keywords that can be used to annotate
   the JSON instance with useful information.  The Section 7 keyword is
   intended primarily as an annotation, but can optionally be used as an
   assertion.  The Section 8 keywords are annotations for working with
   documents embedded as JSON strings.

4.  Interoperability Considerations

4.1.  Validation of String Instances

   It should be noted that the nul character (\u0000) is valid in a JSON
   string.  An instance to validate may contain a string value with this
   character, regardless of the ability of the underlying programming
   language to deal with such data.




Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


4.2.  Validation of Numeric Instances

   The JSON specification allows numbers with arbitrary precision, and
   JSON Schema does not add any such bounds.  This means that numeric
   instances processed by JSON Schema can be arbitrarily large and/or
   have an arbitrarily long decimal part, regardless of the ability of
   the underlying programming language to deal with such data.

4.3.  Regular Expressions

   Keywords that use regular expressions, or constrain the instance
   value to be a regular expression, are subject to the interoperability
   considerations for regular expressions in the JSON Schema Core
   [json-schema] specification.

5.  Meta-Schema

   The current URI for the default JSON Schema dialect meta-schema is
   <https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema>.  For schema author
   convenience, this meta-schema describes a dialect consisting of all
   vocabularies defined in this specification and the JSON Schema Core
   specification, as well as two former keywords which are reserved for
   a transitional period.  Individual vocabulary and vocabulary meta-
   schema URIs are given for each section below.  Certain vocabularies
   are optional to support, which is explained in detail in the relevant
   sections.

   Updated vocabulary and meta-schema URIs MAY be published between
   specification drafts in order to correct errors.  Implementations
   SHOULD consider URIs dated after this specification draft and before
   the next to indicate the same syntax and semantics as those listed
   here.

6.  A Vocabulary for Structural Validation

   Validation keywords in a schema impose requirements for successful
   validation of an instance.  These keywords are all assertions without
   any annotation behavior.

   Meta-schemas that do not use "$vocabulary" SHOULD be considered to
   require this vocabulary as if its URI were present with a value of
   true.

   The current URI for this vocabulary, known as the Validation
   vocabulary, is: <https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/vocab/
   validation>.





Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


   The current URI for the corresponding meta-schema is: <https://json-
   schema.org/draft/2020-12/meta/validation>.

6.1.  Validation Keywords for Any Instance Type

6.1.1.  type

   The value of this keyword MUST be either a string or an array.  If it
   is an array, elements of the array MUST be strings and MUST be
   unique.

   String values MUST be one of the six primitive types ("null",
   "boolean", "object", "array", "number", or "string"), or "integer"
   which matches any number with a zero fractional part.

   An instance validates if and only if the instance is in any of the
   sets listed for this keyword.

6.1.2.  enum

   The value of this keyword MUST be an array.  This array SHOULD have
   at least one element.  Elements in the array SHOULD be unique.

   An instance validates successfully against this keyword if its value
   is equal to one of the elements in this keyword's array value.

   Elements in the array might be of any type, including null.

6.1.3.  const

   The value of this keyword MAY be of any type, including null.

   Use of this keyword is functionally equivalent to an "enum"
   (Section 6.1.2) with a single value.

   An instance validates successfully against this keyword if its value
   is equal to the value of the keyword.

6.2.  Validation Keywords for Numeric Instances (number and integer)

6.2.1.  multipleOf

   The value of "multipleOf" MUST be a number, strictly greater than 0.

   A numeric instance is valid only if division by this keyword's value
   results in an integer.





Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


6.2.2.  maximum

   The value of "maximum" MUST be a number, representing an inclusive
   upper limit for a numeric instance.

   If the instance is a number, then this keyword validates only if the
   instance is less than or exactly equal to "maximum".

6.2.3.  exclusiveMaximum

   The value of "exclusiveMaximum" MUST be a number, representing an
   exclusive upper limit for a numeric instance.

   If the instance is a number, then the instance is valid only if it
   has a value strictly less than (not equal to) "exclusiveMaximum".

6.2.4.  minimum

   The value of "minimum" MUST be a number, representing an inclusive
   lower limit for a numeric instance.

   If the instance is a number, then this keyword validates only if the
   instance is greater than or exactly equal to "minimum".

6.2.5.  exclusiveMinimum

   The value of "exclusiveMinimum" MUST be a number, representing an
   exclusive lower limit for a numeric instance.

   If the instance is a number, then the instance is valid only if it
   has a value strictly greater than (not equal to) "exclusiveMinimum".

6.3.  Validation Keywords for Strings

6.3.1.  maxLength

   The value of this keyword MUST be a non-negative integer.

   A string instance is valid against this keyword if its length is less
   than, or equal to, the value of this keyword.

   The length of a string instance is defined as the number of its
   characters as defined by RFC 8259 [RFC8259].








Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


6.3.2.  minLength

   The value of this keyword MUST be a non-negative integer.

   A string instance is valid against this keyword if its length is
   greater than, or equal to, the value of this keyword.

   The length of a string instance is defined as the number of its
   characters as defined by RFC 8259 [RFC8259].

   Omitting this keyword has the same behavior as a value of 0.

6.3.3.  pattern

   The value of this keyword MUST be a string.  This string SHOULD be a
   valid regular expression, according to the ECMA-262 regular
   expression dialect.

   A string instance is considered valid if the regular expression
   matches the instance successfully.  Recall: regular expressions are
   not implicitly anchored.

6.4.  Validation Keywords for Arrays

6.4.1.  maxItems

   The value of this keyword MUST be a non-negative integer.

   An array instance is valid against "maxItems" if its size is less
   than, or equal to, the value of this keyword.

6.4.2.  minItems

   The value of this keyword MUST be a non-negative integer.

   An array instance is valid against "minItems" if its size is greater
   than, or equal to, the value of this keyword.

   Omitting this keyword has the same behavior as a value of 0.

6.4.3.  uniqueItems

   The value of this keyword MUST be a boolean.

   If this keyword has boolean value false, the instance validates
   successfully.  If it has boolean value true, the instance validates
   successfully if all of its elements are unique.




Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


   Omitting this keyword has the same behavior as a value of false.

6.4.4.  maxContains

   The value of this keyword MUST be a non-negative integer.

   If "contains" is not present within the same schema object, then this
   keyword has no effect.

   An instance array is valid against "maxContains" in two ways,
   depending on the form of the annotation result of an adjacent
   "contains" [json-schema] keyword.  The first way is if the annotation
   result is an array and the length of that array is less than or equal
   to the "maxContains" value.  The second way is if the annotation
   result is a boolean "true" and the instance array length is less than
   or equal to the "maxContains" value.

6.4.5.  minContains

   The value of this keyword MUST be a non-negative integer.

   If "contains" is not present within the same schema object, then this
   keyword has no effect.

   An instance array is valid against "minContains" in two ways,
   depending on the form of the annotation result of an adjacent
   "contains" [json-schema] keyword.  The first way is if the annotation
   result is an array and the length of that array is greater than or
   equal to the "minContains" value.  The second way is if the
   annotation result is a boolean "true" and the instance array length
   is greater than or equal to the "minContains" value.

   A value of 0 is allowed, but is only useful for setting a range of
   occurrences from 0 to the value of "maxContains".  A value of 0 with
   no "maxContains" causes "contains" to always pass validation.

   Omitting this keyword has the same behavior as a value of 1.

6.5.  Validation Keywords for Objects

6.5.1.  maxProperties

   The value of this keyword MUST be a non-negative integer.

   An object instance is valid against "maxProperties" if its number of
   properties is less than, or equal to, the value of this keyword.





Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


6.5.2.  minProperties

   The value of this keyword MUST be a non-negative integer.

   An object instance is valid against "minProperties" if its number of
   properties is greater than, or equal to, the value of this keyword.

   Omitting this keyword has the same behavior as a value of 0.

6.5.3.  required

   The value of this keyword MUST be an array.  Elements of this array,
   if any, MUST be strings, and MUST be unique.

   An object instance is valid against this keyword if every item in the
   array is the name of a property in the instance.

   Omitting this keyword has the same behavior as an empty array.

6.5.4.  dependentRequired

   The value of this keyword MUST be an object.  Properties in this
   object, if any, MUST be arrays.  Elements in each array, if any, MUST
   be strings, and MUST be unique.

   This keyword specifies properties that are required if a specific
   other property is present.  Their requirement is dependent on the
   presence of the other property.

   Validation succeeds if, for each name that appears in both the
   instance and as a name within this keyword's value, every item in the
   corresponding array is also the name of a property in the instance.

   Omitting this keyword has the same behavior as an empty object.

7.  Vocabularies for Semantic Content With "format"

7.1.  Foreword

   Structural validation alone may be insufficient to allow an
   application to correctly utilize certain values.  The "format"
   annotation keyword is defined to allow schema authors to convey
   semantic information for a fixed subset of values which are
   accurately described by authoritative resources, be they RFCs or
   other external specifications.

   The value of this keyword is called a format attribute.  It MUST be a
   string.  A format attribute can generally only validate a given set



Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


   of instance types.  If the type of the instance to validate is not in
   this set, validation for this format attribute and instance SHOULD
   succeed.  All format attributes defined in this section apply to
   strings, but a format attribute can be specified to apply to any
   instance types defined in the data model defined in the core JSON
   Schema. [json-schema] [[CREF1: Note that the "type" keyword in this
   specification defines an "integer" type which is not part of the data
   model.  Therefore a format attribute can be limited to numbers, but
   not specifically to integers.  However, a numeric format can be used
   alongside the "type" keyword with a value of "integer", or could be
   explicitly defined to always pass if the number is not an integer,
   which produces essentially the same behavior as only applying to
   integers.  ]]

   The current URI for this vocabulary, known as the Format-Annotation
   vocabulary, is: <https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/vocab/format-
   annotation>.  The current URI for the corresponding meta-schema is:
   <https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/meta/format-annotation>.
   Implementing support for this vocabulary is REQUIRED.

   In addition to the Format-Annotation vocabulary, a secondary
   vocabulary is available for custom meta-schemas that defines "format"
   as an assertion.  The URI for the Format-Assertion vocabulary, is:
   <https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/vocab/format-assertion>.  The
   current URI for the corresponding meta-schema is: <https://json-
   schema.org/draft/2020-12/meta/format-assertion>.  Implementing
   support for the Format-Assertion vocabulary is OPTIONAL.

   Specifying both the Format-Annotation and the Format-Assertion
   vocabularies is functionally equivalent to specifying only the
   Format-Assertion vocabulary since its requirements are a superset of
   the Format-Annotation vocabulary.

7.2.  Implementation Requirements

   The "format" keyword functions as defined by the vocabulary which is
   referenced.

7.2.1.  Format-Annotation Vocabulary

   The value of format MUST be collected as an annotation, if the
   implementation supports annotation collection.  This enables
   application-level validation when schema validation is unavailable or
   inadequate.

   Implementations MAY still treat "format" as an assertion in addition
   to an annotation and attempt to validate the value's conformance to
   the specified semantics.  The implementation MUST provide options to



Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


   enable and disable such evaluation and MUST be disabled by default.
   Implementations SHOULD document their level of support for such
   validation.  [[CREF2: Specifying the Format-Annotation vocabulary and
   enabling validation in an implementation should not be viewed as
   being equivalent to specifying the Format-Assertion vocabulary since
   implementations are not required to provide full validation support
   when the Format-Assertion vocabulary is not specified.  ]]

   When the implementation is configured for assertion behavior, it:

      SHOULD provide an implementation-specific best effort validation
      for each format attribute defined below;

      MAY choose to implement validation of any or all format attributes
      as a no-op by always producing a validation result of true;

   [[CREF3: This matches the current reality of implementations, which
   provide widely varying levels of validation, including no validation
   at all, for some or all format attributes.  It is also designed to
   encourage relying only on the annotation behavior and performing
   semantic validation in the application, which is the recommended best
   practice.  ]]

7.2.2.  Format-Assertion Vocabulary

   When the Format-Assertion vocabulary is declared with a value of
   true, implementations MUST provide full validation support for all of
   the formats defined by this specificaion.  Implementations that
   cannot provide full validation support MUST refuse to process the
   schema.

   An implementation that supports the Format-Assertion vocabulary:

      MUST still collect "format" as an annotation if the implementation
      supports annotation collection;

      MUST evaluate "format" as an assertion;

      MUST implement syntactic validation for all format attributes
      defined in this specification, and for any additional format
      attributes that it recognizes, such that there exist possible
      instance values of the correct type that will fail validation.

   The requirement for minimal validation of format attributes is
   intentionally vague and permissive, due to the complexity involved in
   many of the attributes.  Note in particular that the requirement is
   limited to syntactic checking; it is not to be expected that an
   implementation would send an email, attempt to connect to a URL, or



Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


   otherwise check the existence of an entity identified by a format
   instance.  [[CREF4: The expectation is that for simple formats such
   as date-time, syntactic validation will be thorough.  For a complex
   format such as email addresses, which are the amalgamation of various
   standards and numerous adjustments over time, with obscure and/or
   obsolete rules that may or may not be restricted by other
   applications making use of the value, a minimal validation is
   sufficient.  For example, an instance string that does not contain an
   "@" is clearly not a valid email address, and an "email" or
   "hostname" containing characters outside of 7-bit ASCII is likewise
   clearly invalid.  ]]

   It is RECOMMENDED that implementations use a common parsing library
   for each format, or a well-known regular expression.  Implementations
   SHOULD clearly document how and to what degree each format attribute
   is validated.

   The standard core and validation meta-schema (Section 5) includes
   this vocabulary in its "$vocabulary" keyword with a value of false,
   since by default implementations are not required to support this
   keyword as an assertion.  Supporting the format vocabulary with a
   value of true is understood to greatly increase code size and in some
   cases execution time, and will not be appropriate for all
   implementations.

7.2.3.  Custom format attributes

   Implementations MAY support custom format attributes.  Save for
   agreement between parties, schema authors SHALL NOT expect a peer
   implementation to support such custom format attributes.  An
   implementation MUST NOT fail to collect unknown formats as
   annotations.  When the Format-Assertion vocabulary is specified,
   implementations MUST fail upon encountering unknown formats.

   Vocabularies do not support specifically declaring different value
   sets for keywords.  Due to this limitation, and the historically
   uneven implementation of this keyword, it is RECOMMENDED to define
   additional keywords in a custom vocabulary rather than additional
   format attributes if interoperability is desired.

7.3.  Defined Formats

7.3.1.  Dates, Times, and Duration

   These attributes apply to string instances.






Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


   Date and time format names are derived from RFC 3339, section 5.6
   [RFC3339].  The duration format is from the ISO 8601 ABNF as given in
   Appendix A of RFC 3339.

   Implementations supporting formats SHOULD implement support for the
   following attributes:

   date-time:  A string instance is valid against this attribute if it
      is a valid representation according to the "date-time" production.

   date:  A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is a
      valid representation according to the "full-date" production.

   time:  A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is a
      valid representation according to the "full-time" production.

   duration:  A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is
      a valid representation according to the "duration" production.

   Implementations MAY support additional attributes using the other
   production names defined anywhere in that RFC.  If "full-date" or
   "full-time" are implemented, the corresponding short form ("date" or
   "time" respectively) MUST be implemented, and MUST behave
   identically.  Implementations SHOULD NOT define extension attributes
   with any name matching an RFC 3339 production unless it validates
   according to the rules of that production.  [[CREF5: There is not
   currently consensus on the need for supporting all RFC 3339 formats,
   so this approach of reserving the namespace will encourage
   experimentation without committing to the entire set.  Either the
   format implementation requirements will become more flexible in
   general, or these will likely either be promoted to fully specified
   attributes or dropped.  ]]

7.3.2.  Email Addresses

   These attributes apply to string instances.

   A string instance is valid against these attributes if it is a valid
   Internet email address as follows:

   email:  As defined by the "Mailbox" ABNF rule in RFC 5321, section 
      4.1.2 [RFC5321].

   idn-email:  As defined by the extended "Mailbox" ABNF rule in RFC
      6531, section 3.3 [RFC6531].

   Note that all strings valid against the "email" attribute are also
   valid against the "idn-email" attribute.



Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


7.3.3.  Hostnames

   These attributes apply to string instances.

   A string instance is valid against these attributes if it is a valid
   representation for an Internet hostname as follows:

   hostname:  As defined by RFC 1123, section 2.1 [RFC1123], including
      host names produced using the Punycode algorithm specified in RFC
      5891, section 4.4 [RFC5891].

   idn-hostname:  As defined by either RFC 1123 as for hostname, or an
      internationalized hostname as defined by RFC 5890, section 2.3.2.3
      [RFC5890].

   Note that all strings valid against the "hostname" attribute are also
   valid against the "idn-hostname" attribute.

7.3.4.  IP Addresses

   These attributes apply to string instances.

   A string instance is valid against these attributes if it is a valid
   representation of an IP address as follows:

   ipv4:  An IPv4 address according to the "dotted-quad" ABNF syntax as
      defined in RFC 2673, section 3.2 [RFC2673].

   ipv6:  An IPv6 address as defined in RFC 4291, section 2.2 [RFC4291].

7.3.5.  Resource Identifiers

   These attributes apply to string instances.

   uri:  A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is a
      valid URI, according to [RFC3986].

   uri-reference:  A string instance is valid against this attribute if
      it is a valid URI Reference (either a URI or a relative-
      reference), according to [RFC3986].

   iri:  A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is a
      valid IRI, according to [RFC3987].

   iri-reference:  A string instance is valid against this attribute if
      it is a valid IRI Reference (either an IRI or a relative-
      reference), according to [RFC3987].




Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


   uuid:  A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is a
      valid string representation of a UUID, according to [RFC4122].

   Note that all valid URIs are valid IRIs, and all valid URI References
   are also valid IRI References.

   Note also that the "uuid" format is for plain UUIDs, not UUIDs in
   URNs.  An example is "f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6".  For
   UUIDs as URNs, use the "uri" format, with a "pattern" regular
   expression of "^urn:uuid:" to indicate the URI scheme and URN
   namespace.

7.3.6.  uri-template

   This attribute applies to string instances.

   A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is a valid
   URI Template (of any level), according to [RFC6570].

   Note that URI Templates may be used for IRIs; there is no separate
   IRI Template specification.

7.3.7.  JSON Pointers

   These attributes apply to string instances.

   json-pointer:  A string instance is valid against this attribute if
      it is a valid JSON string representation of a JSON Pointer,
      according to RFC 6901, section 5 [RFC6901].

   relative-json-pointer:  A string instance is valid against this
      attribute if it is a valid Relative JSON Pointer
      [relative-json-pointer].

   To allow for both absolute and relative JSON Pointers, use "anyOf" or
   "oneOf" to indicate support for either format.

7.3.8.  regex

   This attribute applies to string instances.

   A regular expression, which SHOULD be valid according to the ECMA-262
   [ecma262] regular expression dialect.

   Implementations that validate formats MUST accept at least the subset
   of ECMA-262 defined in the Regular Expressions (Section 4.3) section
   of this specification, and SHOULD accept all valid ECMA-262
   expressions.



Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


8.  A Vocabulary for the Contents of String-Encoded Data

8.1.  Foreword

   Annotations defined in this section indicate that an instance
   contains non-JSON data encoded in a JSON string.

   These properties provide additional information required to interpret
   JSON data as rich multimedia documents.  They describe the type of
   content, how it is encoded, and/or how it may be validated.  They do
   not function as validation assertions; a malformed string-encoded
   document MUST NOT cause the containing instance to be considered
   invalid.

   Meta-schemas that do not use "$vocabulary" SHOULD be considered to
   require this vocabulary as if its URI were present with a value of
   true.

   The current URI for this vocabulary, known as the Content vocabulary,
   is: <https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/vocab/content>.

   The current URI for the corresponding meta-schema is: <https://json-
   schema.org/draft/2020-12/meta/content>.

8.2.  Implementation Requirements

   Due to security and performance concerns, as well as the open-ended
   nature of possible content types, implementations MUST NOT
   automatically decode, parse, and/or validate the string contents by
   default.  This additionally supports the use case of embedded
   documents intended for processing by a different consumer than that
   which processed the containing document.

   All keywords in this section apply only to strings, and have no
   effect on other data types.

   Implementations MAY offer the ability to decode, parse, and/or
   validate the string contents automatically.  However, it MUST NOT
   perform these operations by default, and MUST provide the validation
   result of each string-encoded document separately from the enclosing
   document.  This process SHOULD be equivalent to fully evaluating the
   instance against the original schema, followed by using the
   annotations to decode, parse, and/or validate each string-encoded
   document.  [[CREF6: For now, the exact mechanism of performing and
   returning parsed data and/or validation results from such an
   automatic decoding, parsing, and validating feature is left
   unspecified.  Should such a feature prove popular, it may be
   specified more thoroughly in a future draft.  ]]



Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


   See also the Security Considerations (Section 10) sections for
   possible vulnerabilities introduced by automatically processing the
   instance string according to these keywords.

8.3.  contentEncoding

   If the instance value is a string, this property defines that the
   string SHOULD be interpreted as binary data and decoded using the
   encoding named by this property.

   Possible values indicating base 16, 32, and 64 encodings with several
   variations are listed in RFC 4648 [RFC4648].  Additionally, sections
   6.7 and 6.8 of RFC 2045 [RFC2045] provide encodings used in MIME.  As
   "base64" is defined in both RFCs, the definition from RFC 4648 SHOULD
   be assumed unless the string is specifically intended for use in a
   MIME context.  Note that all of these encodings result in strings
   consisting only of 7-bit ASCII characters.  Therefore, this keyword
   has no meaning for strings containing characters outside of that
   range.

   If this keyword is absent, but "contentMediaType" is present, this
   indicates that the encoding is the identity encoding, meaning that no
   transformation was needed in order to represent the content in a
   UTF-8 string.

   The value of this property MUST be a string.

8.4.  contentMediaType

   If the instance is a string, this property indicates the media type
   of the contents of the string.  If "contentEncoding" is present, this
   property describes the decoded string.

   The value of this property MUST be a string, which MUST be a media
   type, as defined by RFC 2046 [RFC2046].

8.5.  contentSchema

   If the instance is a string, and if "contentMediaType" is present,
   this property contains a schema which describes the structure of the
   string.

   This keyword MAY be used with any media type that can be mapped into
   JSON Schema's data model.

   The value of this property MUST be a valid JSON schema.  It SHOULD be
   ignored if "contentMediaType" is not present.




Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


8.6.  Example

   Here is an example schema, illustrating the use of "contentEncoding"
   and "contentMediaType":


   {
       "type": "string",
       "contentEncoding": "base64",
       "contentMediaType": "image/png"
   }


   Instances described by this schema are expected to be strings, and
   their values should be interpretable as base64-encoded PNG images.

   Another example:


   {
       "type": "string",
       "contentMediaType": "text/html"
   }


   Instances described by this schema are expected to be strings
   containing HTML, using whatever character set the JSON string was
   decoded into.  Per section 8.1 of RFC 8259 [RFC8259], outside of an
   entirely closed system, this MUST be UTF-8.






















Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


   This example describes a JWT that is MACed using the HMAC SHA-256
   algorithm, and requires the "iss" and "exp" fields in its claim set.


   {
       "type": "string",
       "contentMediaType": "application/jwt",
       "contentSchema": {
           "type": "array",
           "minItems": 2,
           "prefixItems": [
               {
                   "const": {
                       "typ": "JWT",
                       "alg": "HS256"
                   }
               },
               {
                   "type": "object",
                   "required": ["iss", "exp"],
                   "properties": {
                       "iss": {"type": "string"},
                       "exp": {"type": "integer"}
                   }
               }
           ]
       }
   }

   Note that "contentEncoding" does not appear.  While the "application/
   jwt" media type makes use of base64url encoding, that is defined by
   the media type, which determines how the JWT string is decoded into a
   list of two JSON data structures: first the header, and then the
   payload.  Since the JWT media type ensures that the JWT can be
   represented in a JSON string, there is no need for further encoding
   or decoding.

9.  A Vocabulary for Basic Meta-Data Annotations

   These general-purpose annotation keywords provide commonly used
   information for documentation and user interface display purposes.
   They are not intended to form a comprehensive set of features.
   Rather, additional vocabularies can be defined for more complex
   annotation-based applications.

   Meta-schemas that do not use "$vocabulary" SHOULD be considered to
   require this vocabulary as if its URI were present with a value of
   true.



Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


   The current URI for this vocabulary, known as the Meta-Data
   vocabulary, is: <https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/vocab/meta-
   data>.

   The current URI for the corresponding meta-schema is: <https://json-
   schema.org/draft/2020-12/meta/meta-data>.

9.1.  "title" and "description"

   The value of both of these keywords MUST be a string.

   Both of these keywords can be used to decorate a user interface with
   information about the data produced by this user interface.  A title
   will preferably be short, whereas a description will provide
   explanation about the purpose of the instance described by this
   schema.

9.2.  "default"

   There are no restrictions placed on the value of this keyword.  When
   multiple occurrences of this keyword are applicable to a single sub-
   instance, implementations SHOULD remove duplicates.

   This keyword can be used to supply a default JSON value associated
   with a particular schema.  It is RECOMMENDED that a default value be
   valid against the associated schema.

9.3.  "deprecated"

   The value of this keyword MUST be a boolean.  When multiple
   occurrences of this keyword are applicable to a single sub-instance,
   applications SHOULD consider the instance location to be deprecated
   if any occurrence specifies a true value.

   If "deprecated" has a value of boolean true, it indicates that
   applications SHOULD refrain from usage of the declared property.  It
   MAY mean the property is going to be removed in the future.

   A root schema containing "deprecated" with a value of true indicates
   that the entire resource being described MAY be removed in the
   future.

   The "deprecated" keyword applies to each instance location to which
   the schema object containing the keyword successfully applies.  This
   can result in scenarios where every array item or object property is
   deprecated even though the containing array or object is not.

   Omitting this keyword has the same behavior as a value of false.



Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


9.4.  "readOnly" and "writeOnly"

   The value of these keywords MUST be a boolean.  When multiple
   occurrences of these keywords are applicable to a single sub-
   instance, the resulting behavior SHOULD be as for a true value if any
   occurrence specifies a true value, and SHOULD be as for a false value
   otherwise.

   If "readOnly" has a value of boolean true, it indicates that the
   value of the instance is managed exclusively by the owning authority,
   and attempts by an application to modify the value of this property
   are expected to be ignored or rejected by that owning authority.

   An instance document that is marked as "readOnly" for the entire
   document MAY be ignored if sent to the owning authority, or MAY
   result in an error, at the authority's discretion.

   If "writeOnly" has a value of boolean true, it indicates that the
   value is never present when the instance is retrieved from the owning
   authority.  It can be present when sent to the owning authority to
   update or create the document (or the resource it represents), but it
   will not be included in any updated or newly created version of the
   instance.

   An instance document that is marked as "writeOnly" for the entire
   document MAY be returned as a blank document of some sort, or MAY
   produce an error upon retrieval, or have the retrieval request
   ignored, at the authority's discretion.

   For example, "readOnly" would be used to mark a database-generated
   serial number as read-only, while "writeOnly" would be used to mark a
   password input field.

   These keywords can be used to assist in user interface instance
   generation.  In particular, an application MAY choose to use a widget
   that hides input values as they are typed for write-only fields.

   Omitting these keywords has the same behavior as values of false.

9.5.  "examples"

   The value of this keyword MUST be an array.  There are no
   restrictions placed on the values within the array.  When multiple
   occurrences of this keyword are applicable to a single sub-instance,
   implementations MUST provide a flat array of all values rather than
   an array of arrays.





Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


   This keyword can be used to provide sample JSON values associated
   with a particular schema, for the purpose of illustrating usage.  It
   is RECOMMENDED that these values be valid against the associated
   schema.

   Implementations MAY use the value(s) of "default", if present, as an
   additional example.  If "examples" is absent, "default" MAY still be
   used in this manner.

10.  Security Considerations

   JSON Schema validation defines a vocabulary for JSON Schema core and
   concerns all the security considerations listed there.

   JSON Schema validation allows the use of Regular Expressions, which
   have numerous different (often incompatible) implementations.  Some
   implementations allow the embedding of arbitrary code, which is
   outside the scope of JSON Schema and MUST NOT be permitted.  Regular
   expressions can often also be crafted to be extremely expensive to
   compute (with so-called "catastrophic backtracking"), resulting in a
   denial-of-service attack.

   Implementations that support validating or otherwise evaluating
   instance string data based on "contentEncoding" and/or
   "contentMediaType" are at risk of evaluating data in an unsafe way
   based on misleading information.  Applications can mitigate this risk
   by only performing such processing when a relationship between the
   schema and instance is established (e.g., they share the same
   authority).

   Processing a media type or encoding is subject to the security
   considerations of that media type or encoding.  For example, the
   security considerations of RFC 4329 Scripting Media Types [RFC4329]
   apply when processing JavaScript or ECMAScript encoded within a JSON
   string.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [ecma262]  "ECMA-262, 11th edition specification", June 2020,
              <https://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/11.0>.

   [json-schema]
              Wright, A., Andrews, H., Hutton, B., and G. Dennis, "JSON
              Schema: A Media Type for Describing JSON Documents",
              draft-bhutton-json-schema-00 (work in progress), December
              2020.



Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


   [relative-json-pointer]
              Luff, G., Andrews, H., and B. Hutton, Ed., "Relative JSON
              Pointers", draft-handrews-relative-json-pointer-01 (work
              in progress), December 2020.

   [RFC1123]  Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1123, October 1989,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1123>.

   [RFC2045]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
              Bodies", RFC 2045, DOI 10.17487/RFC2045, November 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2045>.

   [RFC2046]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2046, November 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2046>.

   [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>.

   [RFC2673]  Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System",
              RFC 2673, DOI 10.17487/RFC2673, August 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2673>.

   [RFC3339]  Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
              Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

   [RFC3987]  Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
              Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, DOI 10.17487/RFC3987,
              January 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3987>.

   [RFC4122]  Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally
              Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4122, July 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4122>.





Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.

   [RFC4648]  Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
              Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.

   [RFC5321]  Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321>.

   [RFC5890]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
              Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
              RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.

   [RFC5891]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
              Applications (IDNA): Protocol", RFC 5891,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5891, August 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5891>.

   [RFC6531]  Yao, J. and W. Mao, "SMTP Extension for Internationalized
              Email", RFC 6531, DOI 10.17487/RFC6531, February 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6531>.

   [RFC6570]  Gregorio, J., Fielding, R., Hadley, M., Nottingham, M.,
              and D. Orchard, "URI Template", RFC 6570,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6570, March 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6570>.

   [RFC6901]  Bryan, P., Ed., Zyp, K., and M. Nottingham, Ed.,
              "JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Pointer", RFC 6901,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6901, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6901>.

   [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>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4329]  Hoehrmann, B., "Scripting Media Types", RFC 4329,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4329, April 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4329>.





Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


Appendix A.  Keywords Moved from Validation to Core

   Several keywords have been moved from this document into the Core
   Specification [json-schema] as of this draft, in some cases with re-
   naming or other changes.  This affects the following former
   validation keywords:

   "definitions"  Renamed to "$defs" to match "$ref" and be shorter to
      type.  Schema vocabulary authors SHOULD NOT define a "definitions"
      keyword with different behavior in order to avoid invalidating
      schemas that still use the older name.  While "definitions" is
      absent in the single-vocabulary meta-schemas referenced by this
      document, it remains present in the default meta-schema, and
      implementations SHOULD assume that "$defs" and "definitions" have
      the same behavior when that meta-schema is used.

   "allOf", "anyOf", "oneOf", "not", "if", "then", "else",
                                     "items", "additionalItems",
   "contains", "propertyNames",
   "properties", "patternProperties", "additionalProperties"
      All of these keywords apply subschemas to the instance and combine
      their results, without asserting any conditions of their own.
      Without assertion keywords, these applicators can only cause
      assertion failures by using the false boolean schema, or by
      inverting the result of the true boolean schema (or equivalent
      schema objects).  For this reason, they are better defined as a
      generic mechanism on which validation, hyper-schema, and extension
      vocabularies can all be based.

   "dependencies"  This keyword had two different modes of behavior,
      which made it relatively challenging to implement and reason
      about.  The schema form has been moved to Core and renamed to
      "dependentSchemas", as part of the applicator vocabulary.  It is
      analogous to "properties", except that instead of applying its
      subschema to the property value, it applies it to the object
      containing the property.  The property name array form is retained
      here and renamed to "dependentRequired", as it is an assertion
      which is a shortcut for the conditional use of the "required"
      assertion keyword.

Appendix B.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Gary Court, Francis Galiegue, Kris Zyp, and Geraint Luff
   for their work on the initial drafts of JSON Schema.

   Thanks to Jason Desrosiers, Daniel Perrett, Erik Wilde, Evgeny
   Poberezkin, Brad Bowman, Gowry Sankar, Donald Pipowitch, Dave Finlay,




Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


   Denis Laxalde, Phil Sturgeon, Shawn Silverman, and Karen Etheridge
   for their submissions and patches to the document.

Appendix C.  ChangeLog

   [[CREF7: This section to be removed before leaving Internet-Draft
   status.]]

   draft-bhutton-json-schema-validation-00

      *  Correct email format RFC reference to 5321 instead of 5322

      *  Clarified the set and meaning of "contentEncoding" values

      *  Reference ECMA-262, 11th edition for regular expression support

      *  Split "format" into an annotation only vocabulary and an
         assertion vocabulary

      *  Clarify "deprecated" when applicable to arrays

   draft-handrews-json-schema-validation-02

      *  Grouped keywords into formal vocabularies

      *  Update "format" implementation requirements in terms of
         vocabularies

      *  By default, "format" MUST NOT be validated, although validation
         can be enabled

      *  A vocabulary declaration can be used to require "format"
         validation

      *  Moved "definitions" to the core spec as "$defs"

      *  Moved applicator keywords to the core spec

      *  Renamed the array form of "dependencies" to
         "dependentRequired", moved the schema form to the core spec

      *  Specified all "content*" keywords as annotations, not
         assertions

      *  Added "contentSchema" to allow applying a schema to a string-
         encoded document

      *  Also allow RFC 4648 encodings in "contentEncoding"



Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


      *  Added "minContains" and "maxContains"

      *  Update RFC reference for "hostname" and "idn-hostname"

      *  Add "uuid" and "duration" formats

   draft-handrews-json-schema-validation-01

      *  This draft is purely a clarification with no functional changes

      *  Provided the general principle behind ignoring annotations
         under "not" and similar cases

      *  Clarified "if"/"then"/"else" validation interactions

      *  Clarified "if"/"then"/"else" behavior for annotation

      *  Minor formatting and cross-referencing improvements

   draft-handrews-json-schema-validation-00

      *  Added "if"/"then"/"else"

      *  Classify keywords as assertions or annotations per the core
         spec

      *  Warn of possibly removing "dependencies" in the future

      *  Grouped validation keywords into sub-sections for readability

      *  Moved "readOnly" from hyper-schema to validation meta-data

      *  Added "writeOnly"

      *  Added string-encoded media section, with former hyper-schema
         "media" keywords

      *  Restored "regex" format (removal was unintentional)

      *  Added "date" and "time" formats, and reserved additional RFC
         3339 format names

      *  I18N formats: "iri", "iri-reference", "idn-hostname", "idn-
         email"

      *  Clarify that "json-pointer" format means string encoding, not
         URI fragment




Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


      *  Fixed typo that inverted the meaning of "minimum" and
         "exclusiveMinimum"

      *  Move format syntax references into Normative References

      *  JSON is a normative requirement

   draft-wright-json-schema-validation-01

      *  Standardized on hyphenated format names with full words
         ("uriref" becomes "uri-reference")

      *  Add the formats "uri-template" and "json-pointer"

      *  Changed "exclusiveMaximum"/"exclusiveMinimum" from boolean
         modifiers of "maximum"/"minimum" to independent numeric fields.

      *  Split the additionalItems/items into two sections

      *  Reworked properties/patternProperties/additionalProperties
         definition

      *  Added "examples" keyword

      *  Added "contains" keyword

      *  Allow empty "required" and "dependencies" arrays

      *  Fixed "type" reference to primitive types

      *  Added "const" keyword

      *  Added "propertyNames" keyword

   draft-wright-json-schema-validation-00

      *  Added additional security considerations

      *  Removed reference to "latest version" meta-schema, use numbered
         version instead

      *  Rephrased many keyword definitions for brevity

      *  Added "uriref" format that also allows relative URI references

   draft-fge-json-schema-validation-00

      *  Initial draft.



Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation            December 2020


      *  Salvaged from draft v3.

      *  Redefine the "required" keyword.

      *  Remove "extends", "disallow"

      *  Add "anyOf", "allOf", "oneOf", "not", "definitions",
         "minProperties", "maxProperties".

      *  "dependencies" member values can no longer be single strings;
         at least one element is required in a property dependency
         array.

      *  Rename "divisibleBy" to "multipleOf".

      *  "type" arrays can no longer have schemas; remove "any" as a
         possible value.

      *  Rework the "format" section; make support optional.

      *  "format": remove attributes "phone", "style", "color"; rename
         "ip-address" to "ipv4"; add references for all attributes.

      *  Provide algorithms to calculate schema(s) for array/object
         instances.

      *  Add interoperability considerations.

Authors' Addresses

   Austin Wright (editor)

   EMail: aaa@bzfx.net


   Henry Andrews (editor)

   EMail: andrews_henry@yahoo.com


   Ben Hutton (editor)

   EMail: ben@jsonschema.dev
   URI:   https://jsonschema.dev







Wright, et al.            Expires June 11, 2021                [Page 30]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/