Internet DRAFT - draft-bormann-cbor-rfc-cddl-models
draft-bormann-cbor-rfc-cddl-models
Network Working Group C. Bormann
Internet-Draft Universität Bremen TZI
Intended status: Informational 25 February 2023
Expires: 29 August 2023
CDDL models for some existing RFCs
draft-bormann-cbor-rfc-cddl-models-01
Abstract
A number of CBOR- and JSON-based protocols have been defined before
CDDL was standardized or widely used.
This short draft records some CDDL definitions for such protocols,
which could become part of a library of CDDL definitions available
for use in CDDL2 processors. It focuses on CDDL in (almost)
published IETF RFCs.
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 29 August 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Bormann Expires 29 August 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CDDL models for some existing RFCs February 2023
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. CDDL definitions for (almost) published RFCs . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. RFC 7071 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. RFC 8366 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. 7807bis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4. YANG-SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.5. Your favorite RFC here... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
(Please see abstract.) Add in [STD94] [STD90] [RFC8610] [RFC9165]
[I-D.bormann-cbor-cddl-more-control]
2. CDDL definitions for (almost) published RFCs
This section is intended to have one subsection for each CDDL data
model presented for an existing RFC. As a start, it is fleshed out
with three such data models.
2.1. RFC 7071
Appendix H of [RFC8610] contains two CDDL definitions for [RFC7071],
which are not copied here. Typically, the compact form would be used
in applications using the RFC 7071 format; while the extended form
might be useful to cherry-pick features of RFC 7071 into another
protocol.
Bormann Expires 29 August 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CDDL models for some existing RFCs February 2023
2.2. RFC 8366
[RFC8366] defines a data model for a "Voucher Artifact", which can be
represented in CDDL as:
voucher-artifact = {
"ietf-voucher:voucher": {
created-on: yang$date-and-time
? (
expires-on: yang$date-and-time
? last-renewal-date: yang$date-and-time
//
nonce: json-binary<bytes .size (8..32)>
)
assertion: assertion
serial-number: text
? idevid-issuer: json-binary<bytes>
pinned-domain-cert: json-binary<bytes>
? domain-cert-revocation-checks: bool
}
}
assertion = "verified" / "logged" / "proximity"
yang$date-and-time = text .regexp cat3<"[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}T",
"[0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2}([.][0-9]+)?",
"(Z|[+-][0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2})">
cat3<A,B,C> = (A .cat B) .cat C
json-binary<T> = text .b64c T
The two examples in the RFC can be validated with this little patchup
script:
sed -e s/ue=/uQ=/ -e s/'"true"'/true/ | cddl rfc8366.cddl vp -
2.3. 7807bis
The RFC to be published out of [_7807bis] defines a simple data model
that is reproduced in CDDL here:
Bormann Expires 29 August 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CDDL models for some existing RFCs February 2023
problem-object = {
? type: ~uri
? title: text
? status: 100..599
? detail: text
? instance: ~uri
* (text .regexp "\\*.*")
.feature "standard-problem-object-extension" => any
* text .feature "problem-object-extension" => any
}
Note that Appendix B of [RFC9290] also defines a CBOR-specific data
model that may be useful for tunneling [RFC7807] problem details in
[RFC9290] Concise Problem Details.
2.4. YANG-SID
The RFC to be published out of [YANG-SID] defines a data model for a
"SID file" in YANG, to be transported as a YANG-JSON instance.
An equivalent CDDL data model is given here:
sid-file = {
"ietf-sid-file:sid-file": {
module-name: yang$yang-identifier
? module-revision: revision-identifier
? sid-file-version: sid-file-version-identifier
? sid-file-status: "unpublished" / "published"
? description: text
? dependency-revision: [* dependency-revision]
? assignment-range: [* assignment-range]
? item: [*item]
}
}
rep<RE>=cat3<"(", RE, ")*">
opt<RE>=cat3<"(", RE, ")?">
cat3<A,B,C> = (A .cat B) .cat C
id-re = "[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9\\-_.]*"
yang$yang-identifier = text .regexp id-re
revision-identifier = text .regexp "[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}"
sid-file-version-identifier = uint .size 4
sid = text .decimal (0..9223372036854775807)
plus-id<Prefix> = Prefix .cat id-re
schema-node-re = cat3<plus-id<"/">, plus-id<":">, ; qualified
rep<plus-id<"/"> .cat ; optionally
opt<plus-id<":">> > > ; qualified
Bormann Expires 29 August 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CDDL models for some existing RFCs February 2023
schema-node-path = text .regexp schema-node-re
dependency-revision = {
module-name: yang$yang-identifier
module-revision: revision-identifier
}
assignment-range = {
entry-point: sid
size: sid
}
item = {
? status: "stable" / "unstable" / "obsolete"
(
namespace: "module" / "identity" / "feature"
identifier: yang$yang-identifier
//
namespace: "data"
identifier: schema-node-path
)
sid: sid
}
2.5. Your favorite RFC here...
3. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests of IANA.
4. Security considerations
The security considerations of [RFC8610], [RFC9165],
[I-D.bormann-cbor-cddl-more-control], [STD94] and [STD90] apply.
This collection of CDDL models is not thought to create new security
considerations. Errors in the models could -- if we knew of them,
we'd fix those errors instead of explaining their security
consequences in this section.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
Bormann Expires 29 August 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CDDL models for some existing RFCs February 2023
[I-D.bormann-cbor-cddl-more-control]
Bormann, C., "More Control Operators for CDDL", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-bormann-cbor-cddl-more-
control-00, 25 February 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bormann-cbor-
cddl-more-control-00>.
[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/rfc/rfc8610>.
[RFC9165] Bormann, C., "Additional Control Operators for the Concise
Data Definition Language (CDDL)", RFC 9165,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9165, December 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9165>.
[STD90] 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/rfc/rfc8259>.
[STD94] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8949>.
5.2. Informative References
[RFC7071] Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Media Type for
Reputation Interchange", RFC 7071, DOI 10.17487/RFC7071,
November 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7071>.
[RFC7807] Nottingham, M. and E. Wilde, "Problem Details for HTTP
APIs", RFC 7807, DOI 10.17487/RFC7807, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7807>.
[RFC8366] Watsen, K., Richardson, M., Pritikin, M., and T. Eckert,
"A Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping Protocols",
RFC 8366, DOI 10.17487/RFC8366, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8366>.
[RFC9290] Fossati, T. and C. Bormann, "Concise Problem Details for
Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) APIs", RFC 9290,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9290, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9290>.
Bormann Expires 29 August 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CDDL models for some existing RFCs February 2023
[YANG-SID] Veillette, M., Pelov, A., Petrov, I., Bormann, C., and M.
Richardson, "YANG Schema Item iDentifier (YANG SID)", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-sid-19, 26
July 2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-core-sid-19>.
[_7807bis] Nottingham, M., Wilde, E., and S. Dalal, "Problem Details
for HTTP APIs", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-05, 26 January 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpapi-
rfc7807bis-05>.
Acknowledgements
TBD
Author's Address
Carsten Bormann
Universität Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
D-28359 Bremen
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921
Email: cabo@tzi.org
Bormann Expires 29 August 2023 [Page 7]
