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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 5511

Networking Working Group                                       A. Farrel
Internet-Draft                                        Old Dog Consulting
Intended Status: Standards Track
Created: February 5, 2009
Expires: August 5, 2009


                  Reduced Backus-Naur Form (RBNF)
          A Syntax Used in Various Protocol Specifications

                 draft-farrel-rtg-common-bnf-08.txt

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Abstract

   Several protocols have been specified in the Routing Area of the IETF
   using a common variant of the Backus-Naur Form (BNF) of representing
   message syntax. However, there is no formal definition of this
   version of BNF.

   There is value in using the same variant of BNF for the set of
   protocols that are commonly used together. This reduces confusion and
   simplifies implementation.

   Updating existing documents to use some other variant of BNF that is
   already formally documented would be a substantial piece of work.

   This document provides a formal definition of the variant of BNF that
   has been used (that we call Reduced BNF), and makes it available for
   use by new protocols.


Farrel                                                          [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                 Reduced BNF                 February 2009


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ................................................... 2
   1.1. Terminology .................................................. 3
   1.2. Existing Uses ................................................ 3
   1.3. Applicability Statement ...................................... 3
   2. Formal Definitions ............................................. 4
   2.1. Rule Definitions ............................................. 4
   2.1.1. Rule Name Delimitation ..................................... 5
   2.1.2. Objects .................................................... 5
   2.1.3. Constructs ................................................. 5
   2.1.4. Messages ................................................... 5
   2.2. Operators .................................................... 5
   2.2.1. Assignment ................................................. 6
   2.2.2. Concatenation .............................................. 6
   2.2.3. Optional Presence .......................................... 6
   2.2.4. Alternatives ............................................... 7
   2.2.5. Repetition ................................................. 8
   2.2.6. Grouping ................................................... 9
   2.3. Editorial Conventions ....................................... 10
   2.3.1. White Space ............................................... 10
   2.3.2. Line Breaks ............................................... 10
   2.3.3. Ordering .................................................. 10
   2.4. Precedence .................................................. 11
   3. Automated Validation .......................................... 12
   4. IANA Considerations ........................................... 12
   5. Security Considerations ....................................... 12
   6. Acknowledgments ............................................... 12
   7.  References ................................................... 13
   7.1. Normative References  ....................................... 13
   7.2. Informative References ...................................... 13

1. Introduction

   Backus-Naur Form (BNF) has been used to specify the message formats
   of several protocols within the Routing Area of the IETF.
   Unfortunately these specifications are not based on any specific
   formal definition of BNF and differ slightly from the definitions
   provided in other places.

   It is clearly valuable to have a formal definition of the syntax-
   defining language that is used. It would be possible to convert all
   existing specifications to use an established specification of BNF
   (for example, Augmented BNF or ABNF [RFC5234]), however this would
   require a lot of work.

   On the other hand, the variant of BNF used by the specifications in
   question (which is similar to a subset of Extended BNF [EBNF]) is


Farrel                                                          [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                 Reduced BNF                 February 2009


   consistent and has only a small number of constructs. It makes sense,
   therefore, to provide a definition of this variant of BNF to allow
   ease of interpretation of existing documents and to facilitate the
   development of new protocol specifications using the same variant of
   BNF. A specification will also facilitate automated verification of
   the formal definitions used in future documents.

   This document provides such a specification and names the BNF variant
   Reduced BNF (RBNF).

1.1. 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 [RFC2119].

1.2. Existing Uses

   The first notable use of the variant of BNF that concerns us is in
   the specification of the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP)
   [RFC2205]. RSVP has been extended for use in Multiprotocol Label
   Switching (MPLS) networks to provide signaling for Traffic
   Engineering (TE) [RFC3209], and this has been developed for use as
   the signaling protocol in Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks
   [RFC3473].

   Each of these three uses of RSVP has given rise to a large number of
   specifications of protocol extensions to provide additional features
   over and above those in the base documents. Each new feature is
   defined in its own document using the common variant of BNF.

   New protocols have also been specified using the same variant of BNF.
   This has arisen partly because the developers were familiar with the
   BNF used in [RFC2205], etc., but also because of the overlap between
   the protocols especially with respect to the network objects
   controlled and operated.

   Notable among these additional protocols are the Link Management
   Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] and the Path Computation Element Protocol
   (PCEP) [PCEP]. In both cases further documents that specify protocol
   extensions also use the same variant of BNF.

1.3. Applicability Statement

   RBNF as defined in this document is primarily applicable for the
   protocols listed in the previous section. The specification may be
   used to facilitate the interpretation of the pre-existing RFCs that
   are referenced. It should also be used in the specification of


Farrel                                                          [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                 Reduced BNF                 February 2009


   extensions to those protocols.

   RBNF could also be used for the specification of new protocols. This
   is most appropriate for the development of new protocols that are
   closely related to those that already use RBNF. For example, PCEP is
   closely related to RSVP-TE and when it was developed, the PCE working
   gorup chose to use the same form of BNF as was already used in the
   RSVP-TE specifications.

   If a wholly new protocol is being developed and is not related to a
   protocol that already uses RBNF, the working group should consider
   carefully whether to use RBNF or to use a more formally specified and
   broader form of BNF such as ABNF [RFC5234].

   The use of RBNF to specify extensions to protocols that do not
   already use RBNF (i.e., that use some other form of BNF) is not
   recommended.

2. Formal Definitions

   The basic building blocks of BNF are rules and operators. At its
   simplest form, a rule in the context we are defining is a protocol
   object that is traditionally defined by a bit diagram in the protocol
   specification. Further and more complex rules are constructed by
   combining other rules using operators. The most complex rule is the
   message that is constructed from an organization of protocol objects
   as specified by the operators.

   An RBNF specification consists of a sequence of rule definitions
   using the operators defined in Section 2.2. One rule may be
   constructed from a set of other rules using operators. The order of
   definition of rules does not matter. That is, the sub-ordinate rules
   MAY be defined first and then used in subsequent definitions of
   further rules, or the top-level rules MAY be defined first followed
   by a set of definitions of the sub-ordinate rules.

2.1. Rule Definitions

   No semantics should be assumed from special characters used in rule
   names. For example, it would be wrong to assume that a rule carries a
   decimal number because the rule name begins or ends with the letter
   "d". However, individual specifications MAY choose to assign rule
   names in any way that makes the human interpretation of the rule more
   easy.






Farrel                                                          [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                 Reduced BNF                 February 2009


2.1.1. Rule Name Delimitation

   All rule names are enclosed by angle brackets ("<" and ">"). Rule
   names MAY include any printable characters, but MUST NOT include tabs
   or line feeds/breaks.

   Example:
     <Path Message>

2.1.2. Objects

   The most basic (indivisible) rule is termed an object. The definition
   of an object is derived from its context.

   Objects are typically named in upper case. They do not usually use
   spaces within the name, favoring underbars ("_").

   Example:
     <SENDER_TEMPLATE>

2.1.3. Constructs

   Rules that are constructed from other rules using operators are
   termed constructs.

   Constructs are named in lower case, although capitals are commonly
   used to indicate acronyms. Spaces and hyphens are used between words
   within names.

   Example:
     <sender descriptor>

2.1.4. Messages

   The final objective is the definition of messages. These are rules
   that are constructed from objects and constructs using operators. The
   only syntactic difference between a message and a construct is that
   no other rule is typically constructed from a message.

   Messages are typically named in title case.

   Example:
     <Path Message>

2.2. Operators

   Operators are used to build constructs and messages from objects and
   constructs.


Farrel                                                          [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                 Reduced BNF                 February 2009


2.2.1. Assignment

   Assignment is used to form constructs and messages.

   Meaning:
     The named construct or message on the left-hand side is defined to
     be set equal to the right-hand side of the assignment.

   Encoding:
     colon, colon, equal sign ("::=")

   Example:
     <WF flow descriptor> ::= <FLOWSPEC>

   Note:
     The left-hand side of the assignment and the assignment operator
     MUST be present on the same line.

2.2.2. Concatenation

   Objects and constructs can be combined as a sequence to form a new
   construct or a message.

   Meaning:
     The objects or constructs MUST be present in the order specified.

   Encoding:
     A sequence of objects and constructs usually separated by spaces.
     The objects in a sequence MAY be separated by line breaks.

   Example:
     <SE flow descriptor> ::= <FLOWSPEC> <filter spec list>

   Note:
     See Section 2.3.3 for further comments on ordering of objects and
     constructs.

2.2.3. Optional Presence

   Objects and constructs can be marked as optionally present.

   Meaning:
     The optional objects or constructs MAY be present or absent within
     the assignment. Unless indicated as optional, objects and
     constructs are mandatory and MUST be present. The optional operator
     can also be nested to give a hierarchical dependency of presence as
     shown in the example below.



Farrel                                                          [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                 Reduced BNF                 February 2009


   Encoding:
     Contained in square brackets ("[" and "]").

   Example:
     <PathTear Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
                            <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
                            [ <sender descriptor> ]

   Example of nesting:
     The optional operator can be nested. For example,

       <construct> ::= <MAND> [ <OPT_1> [ <OPT_2> ] ]

     In this construction, the object OPT_2 can only be present if OPT_1
     is also present.

   Note:
     The set of objects and constructs within the same pair of square
     brackets is treated as a unit (an unnamed construct). This means
     that when multiple objects and constructs are included within the
     same pair of square brackets, all MUST be included when one is
     included unless nested square brackets are used as in the previous
     example.

2.2.4. Alternatives

   Choices can be indicated within assignments.

   Meaning:
     Either one rule or the other MUST be present.

   Encoding:
     The pipe symbol ("|") is used between the objects or constructs
     that are alternatives.

   Example:
     <flow descriptor list> ::= <FF flow descriptor list>
                                | <SE flow descriptor>

   Notes:
     1. Use of explicit grouping (Section 2.2.6) is RECOMMENDED to avoid
        confusion. Implicit grouping using line breaks (Section 2.3.2)
        is often used, but gives rise to potential misinterpretation and
        SHOULD be avoided in new definitions.






Farrel                                                          [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                 Reduced BNF                 February 2009


     2. Multiple members of alternate sets can give rise to confusion.
        For example,

           <flow descriptor list> ::=  <empty> |
                                <flow descriptor list> <flow descriptor>

        could be read to mean that an instance of <flow descriptor> must
        be present or that it is optional.

        To avoid this type of issue, explicit grouping (see Section
        2.2.6), or an intermediary MUST be used in all new documents
        (existing uses are not deprecated, and automatic parsers need to
        handle existing RFCs). See also Section 2.4 for a description of
        precedence rules.

        Thus:

          <construct> ::= <ALT_A> <ALT_B> | <ALT_C> <ALT_D>

        is not allowed in new documents and MUST be presented using
        grouping or using an intermediary construct. For example, and
        depending on intended meaning:

          <construct> ::= ( <ALT_A> <ALT_B> ) | ( <ALT_C> <ALT_D> )

            or

          <construct> ::= <ALT_A> ( <ALT_B> | <ALT_C> ) <ALT_D>

        or

          <intermediary X> ::= <ALT_A> <ALT_B>
          <intermediary Y> ::= <ALT_C> <ALT_D>
          <construct> ::= <intermediary X> | <intermediary Y>

            or

          <intermediary Z> ::= <ALT_B> | <ALT_C>
          <construct> ::= <ALT_A> <intermediary Z> <ALT_D>

2.2.5. Repetition

   It could be the case that a sequence of identical objects or
   constructs is required within an assignment.

   Meaning:
     One or more of the same object, intermediate construct, or
     construct MUST be present.


Farrel                                                          [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                 Reduced BNF                 February 2009


   Encoding:
     Three dots ("...").

   Example:
     <Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
                        <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
                        <TIME_VALUES>
                        [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
                        [ <sender descriptor> ]

   Notes:
     1. A set of zero or more objects or constructs can be achieved by
        combining with the Optional concept as shown in the example
        above.

     2. Sequences can also be encoded by building a recursive construct
        using the Alternative operator. For example:

          <sequence> ::= <OBJECT> |
                         <OBJECT> <sequence>

     3. Repetition can also be applied to a component of an assignment
        to indicate the optional repetition of that component. For
        example, the Notify message in [RFC3473] is defined as follows:

         <Notify message> ::=
                          <Common Header> [<INTEGRITY>]
                          [ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ]
                          [ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
                          <ERROR_SPEC> <notify session list>

        In this example, there is a sequence of zero or more instances
        of [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>]. One could argue that
        the use of grouping (see Section 2.2.6) or a recursive construct
        (see Note 2, above) would be more clear.

2.2.6. Grouping

   Meaning:
     A group of objects or constructs to be treated together. This
     notation is not mandatory but is RECOMMENDED for clarity. See
     Section 2.4 on Precedence.

   Encoding:
     Round brackets ("(" and ")") enclosing a set of objects,
     constructs, and operators.




Farrel                                                          [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                 Reduced BNF                 February 2009


   Example:
     <group> ::= ( <this> <that> )

   Notes:
     1. The precedence rule in Section 2.4 means that the use of
        grouping is not necessary for the formal interpretation of the
        BNF representation. However, grouping can make the BNF easier to
        parse unambiguously. Either grouping or an intermediate
        construct MUST be used for multi-alternates (Section 2.2.4).

     2. Line breaks (Section 2.3.2) are often used to clarify grouping
        as can be seen in the definition of <sequence> in Section 2.2.5,
        but these are open to misinterpretation, and explicit grouping
        is RECOMMENDED.

     3. A practical alternative to grouping is the definition of
        intermediate constructs as illustrated in Note 2 of Section
        2.2.4.

2.3. Editorial Conventions

2.3.1. White Space

   White space (that is space characters) between operators, objects,
   and constructs is ignored, but SHOULD be used for readability.

2.3.2. Line Breaks

   Line breaks within an assignment are ignored, but SHOULD be used for
   readability.

   Line breaks are often used to imply grouping within the precedence
   rules set out in Section 2.4, but explicit grouping (Section 2.2.6)
   or intermediary constructs (Section 2.2.4) SHOULD be used in new
   definitions.

   A line break MUST NOT be present between the left-hand side of an
   assignment and the assignment operator (see Section 2.2.1).

   New assignments (i.e., new construct or message definitions) MUST
   begin on a new line.

2.3.3. Ordering

   The ordering of objects and constructs in an assignment is explicit.

   Protocol specifications MAY opt to state that ordering is only
   RECOMMENDED. In this case, elements of a list of objects and
   constructs MAY be received in any order.

Farrel                                                         [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                 Reduced BNF                 February 2009


2.4. Precedence

   Precedence is the main opportunity for confusion in the use of this
   BNF. In particular the use of alternatives mixed with concatenations
   can give rise to different interpretations of the BNF. Although
   precedence can be deduced from a "proper" reading of the BNF using
   the rules defined above and the precedence ordering shown below,
   authors are strongly RECOMMENDED to use grouping (Section 2.2.6) and
   ordering (Section 2.3.3) to avoid cases where the reader would
   otherwise be required to understand the precedence rules.

   Automated readers are REQUIRED to parse rules correctly with or
   without this use of grouping.

   The various mechanisms described in the previous sections have the
   following precedence, from highest (binding tightest) at the top, to
   lowest and loosest at the bottom:

      objects, constructs
      repetition
      grouping, optional
      concatenation
      alternative

   Note:
     Precedence is the main opportunity for confusion in the use of BNF.
     Authors are strongly RECOMMENDED to use grouping (Section 2.2.6) in
     all places where there is any scope for misinterpretation even when
     the meaning is obvious to the authors.

   Example:
     An example of the confusion in precedence can be found in Section
     3.1.4 of [RFC2205] and is mentioned in Section 2.2.4.

           <flow descriptor list> ::=  <empty> |
                            <flow descriptor list> <flow descriptor>

     The implementer MUST decide which of the following is intended.

     a.  <flow descriptor list> ::= <empty> |
                            ( <flow descriptor list> <flow descriptor> )

     b.  <flow descriptor list> ::= ( <empty> | <flow descriptor list> )
                                    <flow descriptor>

     The line break MAY be interpreted as implying grouping, but that is
     not an explicit rule. However, the precedence rules say that



Farrel                                                         [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                 Reduced BNF                 February 2009


     Concatenation has higher precedence than the Alternative operator.
     Thus, the text in [RFC2205] SHOULD be interpretted as shown in
     formulation a.

     Similarly (from the same section of [RFC2205])

           <flow descriptor list> ::=
                            <FLOWSPEC>  <FILTER_SPEC>  |
                            <flow descriptor list> <FF flow descriptor>

     SHOULD be interpretted as

           <flow descriptor list> ::=
                         ( <FLOWSPEC> <FILTER_SPEC> ) |
                         ( <flow descriptor list> <FF flow descriptor> )

     The use of explicit grouping or intermediary constructs is strongly
     RECOMMENDED in new text to avoid confusion.

3. Automated Validation

   RBNF would be appropriate for verification using automated validation
   tools. Validation tools need to be able to check for close
   conformance to the rules expressed in this document to be useful for
   verifying new documents, but should also be able to parse RBNF as
   used in existing RFCs. No tools are known at this time.

4. IANA Considerations

   This document makes no requests for IANA action.

5. Security Considerations

   This document does not define any network behavior and does not
   introduce or seek to solve any security issues.

   It may be noted that clear and unambiguous protocol specifications
   reduce the likelihood of incompatible or defective implementations
   that might be exploited in security attacks.

6. Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Magnus Westerlund, Nic Neate, Chris Newman, Alfred Hoenes,
   Lou Berger, Julien Meuric, Stuart Venters, Tom Petch, and Sam Hartman
   for review and useful comments.





Farrel                                                         [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                 Reduced BNF                 February 2009


7.  References

7.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

7.2. Informative References

   [RFC2205] Braden, R. (Ed.), Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
             Jamin, "Resource ReserVation Protocol -- Version 1
             Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
             and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
             Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
             (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
             Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.

   [RFC4204] Lang, J., Ed., "The Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC
             4204, September 2005.

   [RFC5234] Crocker, D. (Ed.) and Overell, P., "Augmented BNF for
             Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January
             2008.

   [PCEP]    Vasseur, J.P., and Le Roux, J.-L., "Path Computation
             Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) - Version 1",
             draft-ietf-pce-pcep, work in progress.

   [EBNF]    ISO/IEC 14977, "Information technology -- Syntactic
             metalanguage -- Extended BNF", 1996


Author's Address

   Adrian Farrel
   Old Dog Consulting

   Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk








Farrel                                                         [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                 Reduced BNF                 February 2009


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (c) 2009 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.

   ALL IETF Documents and the information contained herein are provided
   on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
   IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
   WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
   WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
   ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
   FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or
   under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are
   published by third parties, including those that are translated into
   other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions
   of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
   is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of
   these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including
   those that are translated into other languages, should not be
   considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.

   For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards
   Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of
   the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the
   provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,
   conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
   rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and
   shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
   Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.









Farrel                                                         [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/