[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-fge-json-schema-validation) 00 01

Internet Engineering Task Force                           A. Wright, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational                                   G. Luff
Expires: April 16, 2017                                 October 13, 2016


 JSON Schema Validation: A Vocabulary for Structural Validation of JSON
                 draft-wright-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 <http://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 http://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 April 16, 2017.








Wright & Luff            Expires April 16, 2017                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation             October 2016


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   (http://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Interoperability considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Validation of string instances  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Validation of numeric instances . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Regular expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  General validation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Keywords and instance primitive types . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Missing keywords  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Linearity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Validation keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  multipleOf  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.3.  exclusiveMaximum  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.4.  minimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.5.  exclusiveMinimum  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.6.  maxLength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.7.  minLength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.8.  pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.9.  additionalItems and items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.10. maxItems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.11. minItems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.12. uniqueItems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.13. maxProperties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.14. minProperties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.15. required  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.16. properties  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.17. patternProperties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.18. additionalProperties  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.19. dependencies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.20. enum  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10



Wright & Luff            Expires April 16, 2017                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation             October 2016


     5.21. type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.22. allOf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.23. anyOf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.24. oneOf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.25. not . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.26. definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Metadata keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.1.  "title" and "description" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.2.  "default" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Semantic validation with "format" . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.1.  Foreword  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.2.  Implementation requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.3.  Defined formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       7.3.1.  date-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       7.3.2.  email . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       7.3.3.  hostname  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       7.3.4.  ipv4  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       7.3.5.  ipv6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       7.3.6.  uri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       7.3.7.  uriref  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Appendix B.  ChangeLog  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

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.

   This specification will use the 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].






Wright & Luff            Expires April 16, 2017                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation             October 2016


   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.

   This specification uses the term "property set" to refer to the set
   of an object's member names; for instance, the property set of JSON
   Object { "a": 1, "b": 2 } is [ "a", "b" ].

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

3.  Interoperability considerations

3.1.  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.

3.2.  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.

3.3.  Regular expressions

   Two validation keywords, "pattern" and "patternProperties", use
   regular expressions to express constraints.  These regular
   expressions SHOULD be valid according to the ECMA 262 [ecma262]
   regular expression dialect.

   Furthermore, given the high disparity in regular expression
   constructs support, schema authors SHOULD limit themselves to the
   following regular expression tokens:

      individual Unicode characters, as defined by the JSON
      specification [RFC7159];

      simple character classes ([abc]), range character classes ([a-z]);

      complemented character classes ([^abc], [^a-z]);

      simple quantifiers: "+" (one or more), "*" (zero or more), "?"
      (zero or one), and their lazy versions ("+?", "*?", "??");



Wright & Luff            Expires April 16, 2017                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation             October 2016


      range quantifiers: "{x}" (exactly x occurrences), "{x,y}" (at
      least x, at most y, occurrences), {x,} (x occurrences or more),
      and their lazy versions;

      the beginning-of-input ("^") and end-of-input ("$") anchors;

      simple grouping ("(...)") and alternation ("|").

   Finally, implementations MUST NOT take regular expressions to be
   anchored, neither at the beginning nor at the end.  This means, for
   instance, the pattern "es" matches "expression".

4.  General validation considerations

4.1.  Keywords and instance primitive types

   Most validation keywords only limit the range of values within a
   certain primitive type.  When the primitive type of the instance is
   not of the type targeted by the keyword, the validation succeeds.

   For example, the "maxLength" keyword will only restrict certain
   strings (that are too long) from being valid.  If the instance is a
   number, boolean, null, array, or object, the keyword passes
   validation.

4.2.  Missing keywords

   Validation keywords that are missing never restrict validation.  In
   some cases, this no-op behavior is identical to a keyword that exists
   with certain values, and these values are noted where known.

4.3.  Linearity

   Validation keywords typically operate independent of each other,
   without affecting each other.

   For author convienence, there are some exceptions:

      "additionalProperties", whose behavior is defined in terms of
      "properties" and "patternProperties"; and

      "additionalItems", whose behavior is defined in terms of "items"

5.  Validation keywords

   Validation keywords in a schema impose requirements for successfully
   validating an instance.




Wright & Luff            Expires April 16, 2017                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation             October 2016


5.1.  multipleOf

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

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

5.2.  maximum

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

   If the instance is a number, then this keyword validates if
   "exclusiveMaximum" is true and instance is less than the provided
   value, or else if the instance is less than or exactly equal to the
   provided value.

5.3.  exclusiveMaximum

   The value of "exclusiveMaximum" MUST be a boolean, representing
   whether the limit in "maximum" is exclusive or not.  An undefined
   value is the same as false.

   If "exclusiveMaximum" is true, then a numeric instance SHOULD NOT be
   equal to the value specified in "maximum".  If "exclusiveMaximum" is
   false (or not specified), then a numeric instance MAY be equal to the
   value of "maximum".

5.4.  minimum

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

   If the instance is a number, then this keyword validates if
   "exclusiveMinimum" is true and instance is greater than the provided
   value, or else if the instance is greater than or exactly equal to
   the provided value.

5.5.  exclusiveMinimum

   The value of "exclusiveMinimum" MUST be a boolean, representing
   whether the limit in "minimum" is exclusive or not.  An undefined
   value is the same as false.

   If "exclusiveMinimum" is true, then a numeric instance SHOULD NOT be
   equal to the value specified in "minimum".  If "exclusiveMinimum" is
   false (or not specified), then a numeric instance MAY be equal to the
   value of "minimum".



Wright & Luff            Expires April 16, 2017                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation             October 2016


5.6.  maxLength

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

   The value of this keyword MUST be an integer.  This integer MUST be
   greater than, or equal to, 0.

   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 7159 [RFC7159].

5.7.  minLength

   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 7159 [RFC7159].

   The value of this keyword MUST be an integer.  This integer MUST be
   greater than, or equal to, 0.

   "minLength", if absent, may be considered as being present with
   integer value 0.

5.8.  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.

5.9.  additionalItems and items

   The value of "additionalItems" MUST be either a boolean or an object.
   If it is an object, this object MUST be a valid JSON Schema.

   The value of "items" MUST be either a schema or array of schemas.

   Successful validation of an array instance with regards to these two
   keywords is determined as follows:





Wright & Luff            Expires April 16, 2017                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation             October 2016


      if "items" is not present, or its value is an object, validation
      of the instance always succeeds, regardless of the value of
      "additionalItems";

      if the value of "additionalItems" is boolean value true or an
      object, validation of the instance always succeeds;

      if the value of "additionalItems" is boolean value false and the
      value of "items" is an array, the instance is valid if its size is
      less than, or equal to, the size of "items".

   If either keyword is absent, it may be considered present with an
   empty schema.

5.10.  maxItems

   The value of this keyword MUST be an integer.  This integer MUST be
   greater than, or equal to, 0.

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

5.11.  minItems

   The value of this keyword MUST be an integer.  This integer MUST be
   greater than, or equal to, 0.

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

   If this keyword is not present, it may be considered present with a
   value of 0.

5.12.  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.

   If not present, this keyword may be considered present with boolean
   value false.








Wright & Luff            Expires April 16, 2017                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation             October 2016


5.13.  maxProperties

   The value of this keyword MUST be an integer.  This integer MUST be
   greater than, or equal to, 0.

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

5.14.  minProperties

   The value of this keyword MUST be an integer.  This integer MUST be
   greater than, or equal to, 0.

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

   If this keyword is not present, it may be considered present with a
   value of 0.

5.15.  required

   The value of this keyword MUST be an array.  This array MUST have at
   least one element.  Elements of this array MUST be strings, and MUST
   be unique.

   An object instance is valid against this keyword if its property set
   contains all elements in this keyword's array value.

5.16.  properties

   The value of "properties" MUST be an object.  Each value of this
   object MUST be an object, and each object MUST be a valid JSON
   Schema.

   If absent, it can be considered the same as an empty object.

5.17.  patternProperties

   The value of "patternProperties" MUST be an object.  Each property
   name of this object SHOULD be a valid regular expression, according
   to the ECMA 262 regular expression dialect.  Each property value of
   this object MUST be an object, and each object MUST be a valid JSON
   Schema.

   If absent, it can be considered the same as an empty object.






Wright & Luff            Expires April 16, 2017                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation             October 2016


5.18.  additionalProperties

   The value of "additionalProperties" MUST be a boolean or a schema.

   If "additionalProperties" is absent, it may be considered present
   with an empty schema as a value.

   If "additionalProperties" is true, validation always succeeds.

   If "additionalProperties" is false, validation succeeds only if the
   instance is an object and all properties on the instance were covered
   by "properties" and/or "patternProperties".

   If "additionalProperties" is an object, validate the value as a
   schema to all of the properties that weren't validated by
   "properties" nor "patternProperties".

5.19.  dependencies

   This keyword specifies rules that are evaluated if the instance is an
   object and contains a certain property.

   This keyword's value MUST be an object.  Each property specifies a
   dependency.  Each dependency value MUST be an object or an array.

   If the dependency value is an object, it MUST be a valid JSON Schema.
   If the dependency key is a property in the instance, the dependency
   value must validate against the entire instance.

   If the dependency value is an array, it MUST have at least one
   element, each element MUST be a string, and elements in the array
   MUST be unique.  If the dependency key is a property in the instance,
   each of the items in the dependency value must be a property that
   exists in the instance.

5.20.  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.

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

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







Wright & Luff            Expires April 16, 2017                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation             October 2016


5.21.  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 seven primitive types defined by the
   core specification.

   An instance matches successfully if its primitive type is one of the
   types defined by keyword.  Recall: "number" includes "integer".

5.22.  allOf

   This keyword's value MUST be an array.  This array MUST have at least
   one element.

   Elements of the array MUST be objects.  Each object MUST be a valid
   JSON Schema.

   An instance validates successfully against this keyword if it
   validates successfully against all schemas defined by this keyword's
   value.

5.23.  anyOf

   This keyword's value MUST be an array.  This array MUST have at least
   one element.

   Elements of the array MUST be objects.  Each object MUST be a valid
   JSON Schema.

   An instance validates successfully against this keyword if it
   validates successfully against at least one schema defined by this
   keyword's value.

5.24.  oneOf

   This keyword's value MUST be an array.  This array MUST have at least
   one element.

   Elements of the array MUST be objects.  Each object MUST be a valid
   JSON Schema.

   An instance validates successfully against this keyword if it
   validates successfully against exactly one schema defined by this
   keyword's value.




Wright & Luff            Expires April 16, 2017                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation             October 2016


5.25.  not

   This keyword's value MUST be an object.  This object MUST be a valid
   JSON Schema.

   An instance is valid against this keyword if it fails to validate
   successfully against the schema defined by this keyword.

5.26.  definitions

   This keyword's value MUST be an object.  Each member value of this
   object MUST be a valid JSON Schema.

   This keyword plays no role in validation per se.  Its role is to
   provide a standardized location for schema authors to inline JSON
   Schemas into a more general schema.

   As an example, here is a schema describing an array of positive
   integers, where the positive integer constraint is a subschema in
   "definitions":


   {
       "type": "array",
       "items": { "$ref": "#/definitions/positiveInteger" },
       "definitions": {
           "positiveInteger": {
               "type": "integer",
               "minimum": 0,
               "exclusiveMinimum": true
           }
       }
   }


6.  Metadata keywords

6.1.  "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 preferrably be short, whereas a description will provide
   explanation about the purpose of the instance described by this
   schema.





Wright & Luff            Expires April 16, 2017                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation             October 2016


   Both of these keywords MAY be used in root schemas, and in any
   subschemas.

6.2.  "default"

   There are no restrictions placed on the value of this keyword.

   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.

   This keyword MAY be used in root schemas, and in any subschemas.

7.  Semantic validation with "format"

7.1.  Foreword

   Structural validation alone may be insufficient to validate that an
   instance meets all the requirements of an application.  The "format"
   keyword is defined to allow interoperable semantic validation 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
   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.

7.2.  Implementation requirements

   Implementations MAY support the "format" keyword.  Should they choose
   to do so:

      they SHOULD implement validation for attributes defined below;

      they SHOULD offer an option to disable validation for this
      keyword.

   Implementations MAY add custom format attributes.  Save for agreement
   between parties, schema authors SHALL NOT expect a peer
   implementation to support this keyword and/or custom format
   attributes.







Wright & Luff            Expires April 16, 2017                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation             October 2016


7.3.  Defined formats

7.3.1.  date-time

   This attribute applies to string instances.

   A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is a valid
   date representation as defined by RFC 3339, section 5.6 [RFC3339].

7.3.2.  email

   This attribute applies to string instances.

   A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is a valid
   Internet email address as defined by RFC 5322, section 3.4.1
   [RFC5322].

7.3.3.  hostname

7.3.3.1.  Applicability

   This attribute applies to string instances.

7.3.3.2.  Validation

   A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is a valid
   representation for an Internet host name, as defined by RFC 1034,
   section 3.1 [RFC1034].

7.3.4.  ipv4

   This attribute applies to string instances.

   A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is a valid
   representation of an IPv4 address according to the "dotted-quad" ABNF
   syntax as defined in RFC 2673, section 3.2 [RFC2673].

7.3.5.  ipv6

   This attribute applies to string instances.

   A string instance is valid against this attribute if it is a valid
   representation of an IPv6 address as defined in RFC 2373, section 2.2
   [RFC2373].







Wright & Luff            Expires April 16, 2017                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation             October 2016


7.3.6.  uri

   This attribute applies to string instances.

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

7.3.7.  uriref

   This attribute applies to string instances.

   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].

8.  Security considerations

   JSON Schema validation defines a vocabulary for JSON Schema core and
   conserns 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 arbritrary 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.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This specification does not have any influence with regards to IANA.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [json-schema]
              "JSON Schema: A Media Type for Describing JSON Documents",
              draft-wright-json-schema-00 (work in progress), October
              2016.






Wright & Luff            Expires April 16, 2017                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation             October 2016


10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.

   [RFC2373]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 2373, DOI 10.17487/RFC2373, July 1998,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2373>.

   [RFC2673]  Crawford, M., "Binary Labels in the Domain Name System",
              RFC 2673, DOI 10.17487/RFC2673, August 1999,
              <http://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,
              <http://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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

   [RFC7159]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
              2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.

   [RFC5322]  Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, DOI
              10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5322>.

   [ecma262]  "ECMA 262 specification", <http://www.ecma-
              international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/
              Ecma-262.pdf>.

















Wright & Luff            Expires April 16, 2017                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation             October 2016


Appendix A.  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, Ben Hutton,
   Evgeny Poberezkin, and Henry H.  Andrews for their submissions and
   patches to the document.

Appendix B.  ChangeLog

   [[CREF1: This section to be removed before leaving Internet-Draft
   status.]]

   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-01

      *  Initial draft.

      *  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.



Wright & Luff            Expires April 16, 2017                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft           JSON Schema Validation             October 2016


      *  "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


   Geraint Luff

   EMail: luffgd@gmail.com

































Wright & Luff            Expires April 16, 2017                [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/