Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Sequences
RFC 8742
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (February 2020; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Carsten Bormann | ||
| Last updated | 2020-02-19 | ||
| Replaces | draft-bormann-cbor-sequence | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html xml pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Jim Schaad | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2019-08-30) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 8742 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Alexey Melnikov | ||
| Send notices to | Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
| IANA expert review state | Expert Reviews OK | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Bormann
Request for Comments: 8742 Universität Bremen TZI
Category: Standards Track February 2020
ISSN: 2070-1721
Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Sequences
Abstract
This document describes the Concise Binary Object Representation
(CBOR) Sequence format and associated media type "application/cbor-
seq". A CBOR Sequence consists of any number of encoded CBOR data
items, simply concatenated in sequence.
Structured syntax suffixes for media types allow other media types to
build on them and make it explicit that they are built on an existing
media type as their foundation. This specification defines and
registers "+cbor-seq" as a structured syntax suffix for CBOR
Sequences.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8742.
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
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
2. CBOR Sequence Format
3. The "+cbor-seq" Structured Syntax Suffix
4. Practical Considerations
4.1. Specifying CBOR Sequences in Concise Data Definition
Language (CDDL)
4.2. Diagnostic Notation
4.3. Optimizing CBOR Sequences for Skipping Elements
5. Security Considerations
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. Media Type
6.2. CoAP Content-Format Registration
6.3. Structured Syntax Suffix
7. References
7.1. Normative References
7.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Author's Address
1. Introduction
The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC7049] can be used
for serialization of data in the JSON [RFC8259] data model or in its
own, somewhat expanded, data model. When serializing a sequence of
such values, it is sometimes convenient to have a format where these
sequences can simply be concatenated to obtain a serialization of the
concatenated sequence of values or to encode a sequence of values
that might grow at the end by just appending further CBOR data items.
This document describes the concept and format of "CBOR Sequences",
which are composed of zero or more encoded CBOR data items. CBOR
Sequences can be consumed (and produced) incrementally without
requiring a streaming CBOR parser that is able to deliver
substructures of a data item incrementally (or a streaming encoder
able to encode from substructures incrementally).
This document defines and registers the "application/cbor-seq" media
type in the "Media Types" registry along with a Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP) Content-Format identifier. Media type
structured syntax suffixes [RFC6838] were introduced as a way for a
media type to signal that it is based on another media type as its
foundation. CBOR [RFC7049] defines the "+cbor" structured syntax
suffix. This document defines and registers the "+cbor-seq"
structured syntax suffix in the "Structured Syntax Suffix Registry".
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
In this specification, the term "byte" is used in its now-customary
sense as a synonym for "octet".
2. CBOR Sequence Format
Formally, a CBOR Sequence is a sequence of bytes that is recursively
defined as either of the following:
* an empty (zero-length) sequence of bytes
* the sequence of bytes making up an encoded CBOR data item
[RFC7049] followed by a CBOR Sequence.
In short, concatenating zero or more encoded CBOR data items
generates a CBOR Sequence. (Consequently, concatenating zero or more
CBOR Sequences also results in a CBOR Sequence.)
There is no end-of-sequence indicator. (If one is desired, CBOR
encoding an array of the CBOR data model values being encoded,
employing either a definite or an indefinite length encoding, as a
single CBOR data item may actually be the more appropriate
representation.)
CBOR Sequences, unlike JSON Text Sequences [RFC7464], do not use a
marker between items. This is possible because CBOR-encoded data
items are self delimiting and the end can always be calculated.
(Note that, while the early object/array-only form of JSON was self
delimiting as well, this stopped being the case when simple values
such as single numbers were made valid JSON documents.)
Decoding a CBOR Sequence works as follows:
* If the CBOR Sequence is an empty sequence of bytes, the result is
an empty sequence of CBOR data model values.
* Otherwise, one must decode a single CBOR data item from the bytes
of the CBOR Sequence and insert the resulting CBOR data model
value at the start of the result of repeating this decoding
process recursively with the remaining bytes. (A streaming
decoder would therefore simply deliver zero or more CBOR data
model values, each as soon as the bytes making it up are
available.)
This means that if any data item in the sequence is not well formed,
it is not possible to reliably decode the rest of the sequence. (An
implementation may be able to recover from some errors in a sequence
of bytes that is almost, but not entirely, a well-formed encoded CBOR
data item. Handling malformed data is outside the scope of this
specification.)
This also means that the CBOR Sequence format can reliably detect
truncation of the bytes making up the last CBOR data item in the
sequence, but it cannot detect entirely missing CBOR data items at
the end. A CBOR Sequence decoder that is used for consuming
streaming CBOR Sequence data may simply pause for more data (e.g., by
suspending and later resuming decoding) in case a truncated final
item is being received.
3. The "+cbor-seq" Structured Syntax Suffix
The use case for the "+cbor-seq" structured syntax suffix is
analogous to that for "+cbor": it SHOULD be used by a media type when
the result of parsing the bytes of the media type object as a CBOR
Sequence is meaningful and is at least sometimes not just a single
CBOR data item. (Without the qualification at the end, this sentence
is trivially true for any +cbor media type, which of course should
continue to use the "+cbor" structured syntax suffix.)
Applications encountering a "+cbor-seq" media type can then either
simply use generic processing if all they need is a generic view of
the CBOR Sequence or use generic CBOR Sequence tools for initial
parsing and then implement their own specific processing on top of
that generic parsing tool.
4. Practical Considerations
4.1. Specifying CBOR Sequences in Concise Data Definition Language
(CDDL)
In Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) [RFC8610], CBOR Sequences
are already supported as contents of byte strings using the
".cborseq" control operator (Section 3.8.4 of [RFC8610]) by employing
an array as the controller type:
my-embedded-cbor-seq = bytes .cborseq my-array
my-array = [* my-element]
my-element = my-foo / my-bar
Currently, CDDL does not provide for unadorned CBOR Sequences as a
top-level subject of a specification. For now, the suggestion is to
use an array for the top-level rule, as is used for the ".cborseq"
control operator, and add English text that explains that the
specification is really about a CBOR Sequence with the elements of
the array:
; This defines an array, the elements of which are to be used
; in a CBOR Sequence:
my-sequence = [* my-element]
my-element = my-foo / my-bar
(Future versions of CDDL may provide a notation for top-level CBOR
Sequences, e.g., by using a group as the top-level rule in a CDDL
specification.)
4.2. Diagnostic Notation
CBOR diagnostic notation (see Section 6 of [RFC7049]) or extended
diagnostic notation (Appendix G of [RFC8610]) also does not provide
for unadorned CBOR Sequences at this time (the latter does provide
for CBOR Sequences embedded in a byte string as per Appendix G.3 of
[RFC8610]).
In a similar spirit to the recommendation for CDDL above, this
specification recommends enclosing the CBOR data items in an array.
In a more informal setting, where the boundaries within which the
notation is used are obvious, it is also possible to leave off the
outer brackets for this array, as shown in these two examples:
[1, 2, 3]
1, 2, 3
Note that it is somewhat difficult to discuss zero-length CBOR
Sequences in the latter form.
4.3. Optimizing CBOR Sequences for Skipping Elements
In certain applications, being able to efficiently skip an element
without the need for decoding its substructure, or efficiently
fanning out elements to multi-threaded decoding processes, is of the
utmost importance. For these applications, byte strings (which carry
length information in bytes) containing embedded CBOR can be used as
the elements of a CBOR Sequence:
; This defines an array of CBOR byte strings, the elements of which
; are to be used in a CBOR Sequence:
my-sequence = [* my-element]
my-element = bytes .cbor my-element-structure
my-element-structure = my-foo / my-bar
Within limits, this may also enable recovering from elements that
internally are not well formed; the limitation is that the sequence
of byte strings does need to be well formed as such.
5. Security Considerations
The security considerations of CBOR [RFC7049] apply. This format
provides no cryptographic integrity protection of any kind but can be
combined with security specifications such as CBOR Object Signing and
Encryption (COSE) [RFC8152] to do so. (COSE protections can be
applied to an entire CBOR Sequence or to each of the elements of the
sequence independently; in the latter case, additional effort may be
required if there is a need to protect the relationship of the
elements in the sequence.)
As usual, decoders must operate on input that is assumed to be
untrusted. This means that decoders MUST fail gracefully in the face
of malicious inputs.
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. Media Type
Media types are registered in the "Media Types" registry
[IANA-MEDIA-TYPES]. IANA has registered the media type for CBOR
Sequence, application/cbor-seq, as follows:
Type name: application
Subtype name: cbor-seq
Required parameters: N/A
Optional parameters: N/A
Encoding considerations: binary
Security considerations: See RFC 8742, Section 5.
Interoperability considerations: Described herein.
Published specification: RFC 8742.
Applications that use this media type: Data serialization and
deserialization.
Fragment identifier considerations: N/A
Additional information:
* Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A
* Magic number(s): N/A
* File extension(s): N/A
* Macintosh file type code(s): N/A
Person & email address to contact for further information:
cbor@ietf.org
Intended usage: COMMON
Author: Carsten Bormann (cabo@tzi.org)
Change controller: IETF
6.2. CoAP Content-Format Registration
IANA has assigned a CoAP Content-Format ID for the media type
"application/cbor-seq", within the "CoAP Content-Formats" subregistry
of the "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters" registry
[IANA-CORE-PARAMETERS], from the "Expert Review" (0-255) range
([RFC8126]). The assigned ID is shown in Table 1.
+----------------------+----------+----+-----------+
| Media type | Encoding | ID | Reference |
+======================+==========+====+===========+
| application/cbor-seq | - | 63 | RFC 8742 |
+----------------------+----------+----+-----------+
Table 1: CoAP Content-Format ID
6.3. Structured Syntax Suffix
Structured Syntax Suffixes are registered within the "Structured
Syntax Suffix Registry" maintained at
[IANA-STRUCTURED-SYNTAX-SUFFIX]. IANA has registered the "+cbor-seq"
structured syntax suffix in accordance with [RFC6838] as follows:
Name: CBOR Sequence
+suffix: +cbor-seq
References: RFC 8742
Encoding considerations: binary
Fragment identifier considerations: The syntax and semantics of
fragment identifiers specified for +cbor-seq SHOULD be the same as
that specified for "application/cbor-seq". (At the time of
publication of this document, there is no fragment identification
syntax defined for "application/cbor-seq".)
The syntax and semantics for fragment identifiers for a
specific "xxx/yyy+cbor-seq" SHOULD be processed as follows:
o For cases defined in +cbor-seq, if the fragment identifier
resolves per the +cbor-seq rules, then process as specified
in +cbor-seq.
o For cases defined in +cbor-seq, if the fragment identifier
does not resolve per the +cbor-seq rules, then process as
specified in "xxx/yyy+cbor-seq".
o For cases not defined in +cbor-seq, process as specified in
"xxx/yyy+cbor-seq".
Interoperability considerations: n/a
Security considerations: See RFC 8742, Section 5
Contact: CBOR WG mailing list (cbor@ietf.org), or any IESG-
designated successor.
Author/Change controller: IETF
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[IANA-CORE-PARAMETERS]
IANA, "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE)
Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters>.
[IANA-MEDIA-TYPES]
IANA, "Media Types",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types>.
[IANA-STRUCTURED-SYNTAX-SUFFIX]
IANA, "Structured Syntax Suffix Registry",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-type-structured-
suffix>.
[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>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
[RFC7464] Williams, N., "JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Text
Sequences", RFC 7464, DOI 10.17487/RFC7464, February 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7464>.
[RFC8091] Wilde, E., "A Media Type Structured Syntax Suffix for JSON
Text Sequences", RFC 8091, DOI 10.17487/RFC8091, February
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8091>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8152] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>.
[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>.
[RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.
Acknowledgements
This document has mostly been generated from [RFC7464] by Nico
Williams and [RFC8091] by Erik Wilde, which do a similar but slightly
more complicated exercise for JSON [RFC8259]. Laurence Lundblade
raised an issue on the CBOR mailing list that pointed out the need
for this document. Jim Schaad and John Mattsson provided helpful
comments.
Author's Address
Carsten Bormann
Universität Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
D-28359 Bremen
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921
Email: cabo@tzi.org