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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 draft-ietf-cbor-cddl

Network Working Group                                        H. Birkholz
Internet-Draft                                            Fraunhofer SIT
Intended status: Informational                                 C. Vigano
Expires: January 4, 2018                             Universitaet Bremen
                                                              C. Bormann
                                                 Universitaet Bremen TZI
                                                           July 03, 2017


  Concise data definition language (CDDL): a notational convention to
                      express CBOR data structures
                draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl-11

Abstract

   This document proposes a notational convention to express CBOR data
   structures (RFC 7049).  Its main goal is to provide an easy and
   unambiguous way to express structures for protocol messages and data
   formats that use CBOR.

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 January 4, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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



Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   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
     1.1.  Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  The Style of Data Structure Specification . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Groups and Composition in CDDL  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.1.1.  Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.1.2.  Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.2.  Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.2.1.  Values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.2.2.  Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.2.3.  Representation Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.2.4.  Root type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   3.  Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.1.  General conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.2.  Occurrence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.3.  Predefined names for types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.4.  Arrays  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.5.  Maps  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       3.5.1.  Structs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       3.5.2.  Tables  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     3.6.  Tags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     3.7.  Unwrapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     3.8.  Controls  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       3.8.1.  Control operator .size  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       3.8.2.  Control operator .bits  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       3.8.3.  Control operator .regexp  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       3.8.4.  Control operators .cbor and .cborseq  . . . . . . . .  23
       3.8.5.  Control operators .within and .and  . . . . . . . . .  23
       3.8.6.  Control operators .lt, .le, .gt, .ge, .eq, .ne, and
               .default  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     3.9.  Socket/Plug . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     3.10. Generics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     3.11. Operator Precedence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   4.  Making Use of CDDL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     4.1.  As a guide to a human user  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     4.2.  For automated checking of CBOR data structure . . . . . .  28
     4.3.  For data analysis tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   5.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   6.  IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30



Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   Appendix A.  Cemetery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     A.1.  Resolved Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   Appendix B.  (Not used.)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   Appendix C.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   Appendix D.  ABNF grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   Appendix E.  Standard Prelude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     E.1.  Use with JSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
   Appendix F.  The CDDL tool  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
   Appendix G.  Extended Diagnostic Notation . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
     G.1.  White space in byte string notation . . . . . . . . . . .  42
     G.2.  Text in byte string notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
     G.3.  Embedded CBOR and CBOR sequences in byte strings  . . . .  42
     G.4.  Concatenated Strings  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
     G.5.  Hexadecimal, octal, and binary numbers  . . . . . . . . .  43
     G.6.  Comments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
   Appendix H.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
     H.1.  RFC 7071  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
       H.1.1.  Examples from JSON Content Rules  . . . . . . . . . .  48
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  50

1.  Introduction

   In this document, a notational convention to express CBOR [RFC7049]
   data structures is defined.

   The main goal for the convention is to provide a unified notation
   that can be used when defining protocols that use CBOR.  We term the
   convention "Concise data definition language", or CDDL.

   The CBOR notational convention has the following goals:

   (G1)  Provide an unambiguous description of the overall structure of
         a CBOR data structure.

   (G2)  Flexibility to express the freedoms of choice in the CBOR data
         format.

   (G3)  Possibility to restrict format choices where appropriate
         [_format].

   (G4)  Able to express common CBOR datatypes and structures.

   (G5)  Human and machine readable and processable.

   (G6)  Automatic checking of data format compliance.





Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   (G7)  Extraction of specific elements from CBOR data for further
         processing.

   Not an explicit goal per se, but a convenient side effect of the JSON
   generic data model being a subset of the CBOR generic data model, is
   the fact that CDDL can also be used for describing JSON data
   structures (see Appendix E.1).

   This document has the following structure:

   The syntax of CDDL is defined in Section 3.  Examples of CDDL and
   related CBOR data instances are defined in Appendix H.  Section 4
   discusses usage of CDDL.  Examples are provided early in the text to
   better illustrate concept definitions.  A formal definition of CDDL
   using ABNF grammar is provided in Appendix D.  Finally, a prelude of
   standard CDDL definitions available in every CBOR specification is
   listed in Appendix E.

1.1.  Requirements notation

   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 RFC
   2119, BCP 14 [RFC2119].

1.2.  Terminology

   New terms are introduced in _cursive_.  CDDL text in the running text
   is in "typewriter".

2.  The Style of Data Structure Specification

   CDDL focuses on styles of specification that are in use in the
   community employing the data model as pioneered by JSON and now
   refined in CBOR.

   There are a number of more or less atomic elements of a CBOR data
   model, such as numbers, simple values (false, true, nil), text and
   byte strings; CDDL does not focus on specifying their structure.
   CDDL of course also allows adding a CBOR tag to a data item.

   The more important components of a data structure definition language
   are the data types used for composition: arrays and maps in CBOR
   (called arrays and objects in JSON).  While these are only two
   representation formats, they are used to specify four loosely
   distinguishable styles of composition:





Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   o  A _vector_, an array of elements that are mostly of the same
      semantics.  The set of signatures associated with a signed data
      item is a typical application of a vector.

   o  A _record_, an array the elements of which have different,
      positionally defined semantics, as detailed in the data structure
      definition.  A 2D point, specified as an array of an x coordinate
      (which comes first) and a y coordinate (coming second) is an
      example of a record, as is the pair of exponent (first) and
      mantissa (second) in a CBOR decimal fraction.

   o  A _table_, a map from a domain of map keys to a domain of map
      values, that are mostly of the same semantics.  A set of language
      tags, each mapped to a text string translated to that specific
      language, is an example of a table.  The key domain is usually not
      limited to a specific set by the specification, but open for the
      application, e.g., in a table mapping IP addresses to MAC
      addresses, the specification does not attempt to foresee all
      possible IP addresses.

   o  A _struct_, a map from a domain of map keys as defined by the
      specification to a domain of map values the semantics of each of
      which is bound to a specific map key.  This is what many people
      have in mind when they think about JSON objects; CBOR adds the
      ability to use map keys that are not just text strings.  Structs
      can be used to solve similar problems as records; the use of
      explicit map keys facilitates optionality and extensibility.

   Two important concepts provide the foundation for CDDL:

   1.  Instead of defining all four types of composition in CDDL
       separately, or even defining one kind for arrays (vectors and
       records) and one kind for maps (tables and structs), there is
       only one kind of composition in CDDL: the _group_ (Section 2.1).

   2.  The other important concept is that of a _type_.  The entire CDDL
       specification defines a type (the one defined by its first
       _rule_), which formally is the set of CBOR instances that are
       acceptable for this specification.  CDDL predefines a number of
       basic types such as "uint" (unsigned integer) or "tstr" (text
       string), often making use of a simple formal notation for CBOR
       data items.  Each value that can be expressed as a CBOR data item
       also is a type in its own right, e.g. "1".  A type can be built
       as a _choice_ of other types, e.g., an "int" is either a "uint"
       or a "nint" (negative integer).  Finally, a type can be built as
       an array or a map from a group.





Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


2.1.  Groups and Composition in CDDL

   CDDL Groups are lists of name/value pairs (group _entries_).

   In an array context, only the value of the entry is represented; the
   name is annotation only (and can be left off if not needed).  In a
   map context, the names become the map keys ("member keys").

   In an array context, the sequence of elements in the group is
   important, as it is the information that allows associating actual
   array elements with entries in the group.  In a map context, the
   sequence of entries in a group is not relevant (but there is still a
   need to write down group entries in a sequence).

   A group can be placed in (round) parentheses, and given a name by
   using it in a rule:

                             pii = (
                               age: int,
                               name: tstr,
                               employer: tstr,
                             )

                          Figure 1: A basic group

   Or a group can just be used in the definition of something else:

                             person = {(
                               age: int,
                               name: tstr,
                               employer: tstr,
                             )}

                     Figure 2: Using a group in a map

   which, given the above rule for pii, is identical to:

                                person = {
                                  pii
                                }

                      Figure 3: Using a group by name

   Note that the (curly) braces signify the creation of a map; the
   groups themselves are neutral as to whether they will be used in a
   map or an array.





Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   The parentheses for groups are optional when there is some other set
   of brackets present, so it would be slightly more natural to express
   Figure 2 as:

                             person = {
                               age: int,
                               name: tstr,
                               employer: tstr,
                             }

   Groups can be used to factor out common parts of structs, e.g.,
   instead of writing:

                          person = {
                            age: int,
                            name: tstr,
                            employer: tstr,
                          }

                          dog = {
                            age: int,
                            name: tstr,
                            leash-length: float,
                          }

   one can choose a name for the common subgroup and write:

                          person = {
                            identity,
                            employer: tstr,
                          }

                          dog = {
                            identity,
                            leash-length: float,
                          }

                          identity = (
                            age: int,
                            name: tstr,
                          )

                 Figure 4: Using a group for factorization

   Note that the contents of the braces in the above definitions
   constitute (anonymous) groups, while "identity" is a named group.





Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


2.1.1.  Usage

   Groups are the instrument used in composing data structures with
   CDDL.  It is a matter of style in defining those structures whether
   to define groups (anonymously) right in their contexts or whether to
   define them in a separate rule and to reference them with their
   respective name (possibly more than once).

   With this, one is allowed to define all small parts of their data
   structures and compose bigger protocol units with those or to have
   only one big protocol data unit that has all definitions ad hoc where
   needed.

2.1.2.  Syntax

   The composition syntax intends to be concise and easy to read:

   o  The start of a group can be marked by '('

   o  The end of a group can be marked by ')'

   o  Definitions of entries inside of a group are noted as follows:
      _keytype => valuetype,_ (read "keytype maps to valuetype").  The
      comma is actually optional (not just in the final entry), but it
      is considered good style to set it.  The double arrow can be
      replaced by a colon in the common case of directly using a text
      string as a key (see Section 3.5.1).

   An entry consists of a _keytype_ and a _valuetype_:

   o  _keytype_ is either an atom used as the actual key or a type in
      general.  The latter case may be needed when using groups in a
      table context, where the actual keys are of lesser importance than
      the key types, e.g in contexts verifying incoming data.

   o  _valuetype_ is a type, which could be derived from the major types
      defined in [RFC7049], could be a convenience valuetype defined in
      this document (Appendix E) or the name of a type defined in the
      specification.

   A group definition can also contain choices between groups, see
   Section 2.2.2.

2.2.  Types







Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


2.2.1.  Values

   Values such as numbers and strings can be used in place of a type.
   (For instance, this is a very common thing to do for a keytype,
   common enough that CDDL provides additional convenience syntax for
   this.)

2.2.2.  Choices

   Many places that allow a type also allow a choice between types,
   delimited by a "/" (slash).  The entire choice construct can be put
   into parentheses if this is required to make the construction
   unambiguous (please see Appendix D for the details).

   Choices of values can be used to express enumerations:

            attire = "bow tie" / "necktie" / "Internet attire"
            protocol = 6 / 17

   Similarly as for types, CDDL also allows choices between groups,
   delimited by a "//" (double slash).

                   address = { delivery }

                   delivery = (
                   street: tstr, ? number: uint, city //
                   po-box: uint, city //
                   per-pickup: true )

                   city = (
                   name: tstr, zip-code: uint
                   )

   Both for type choices and for group choices, additional alternatives
   can be added to a rule later in separate rules by using "/=" and
   "//=", respectively, instead of "=":

                 attire /= "swimwear"

                 delivery //= (
                 lat: float, long: float, drone-type: tstr
                 )

   It is not an error if a name is first used with a "/=" or "//="
   (there is no need to "create it" with "=").






Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


2.2.2.1.  Ranges

   Instead of naming all the values that make up a choice, CDDL allows
   building a _range_ out of two values that are in an ordering
   relationship.  A range can be inclusive of both ends given (denoted
   by joining two values by ".."), or include the first and exclude the
   second (denoted by instead using "...").

         device-address = byte
         max-byte = 255
         byte = 0..max-byte ; inclusive range
         first-non-byte = 256
         byte1 = 0...first-non-byte ; byte1 is equivalent to byte

   CDDL currently only allows ranges between numbers [_range].

2.2.2.2.  Turning a group into a choice

   Some choices are built out of large numbers of values, often
   integers, each of which is best given a semantic name in the
   specification.  Instead of naming each of these integers and then
   accumulating these into a choice, CDDL allows building a choice from
   a group by prefixing it with a "&" character:

              terminal-color = &basecolors
              basecolors = (
                black: 0, red: 1,  green: 2,  yellow: 3,
                blue: 4,  magenta: 5,  cyan: 6,  white: 7,
              )
              extended-color = &(
                basecolors,
                orange: 8,  pink: 9,  purple: 10,  brown: 11,
              )

   As with the use of groups in arrays (Section 3.4), the membernames
   have only documentary value (in particular, they might be used by a
   tool when displaying integers that are taken from that choice).

2.2.3.  Representation Types

   CDDL allows the specification of a data item type by referring to the
   CBOR representation (major and minor numbers).  How this is used
   should be evident from the prelude (Appendix E).

   It may be necessary to make use of representation types outside the
   prelude, e.g., a specification could start by making use of an
   existing tag in a more specific way, or define a new tag not defined
   in the prelude:



Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


      my_breakfast = #6.55799(breakfast)   ; cbor-any is too general!
      breakfast = cereal / porridge
      cereal = #6.998(tstr)
      porridge = #6.999([liquid, solid])
      liquid = milk / water
      milk = 0
      water = 1
      solid = tstr

2.2.4.  Root type

   There is no special syntax to identify the root of a CDDL data
   structure definition: that role is simply taken by the first rule
   defined in the file.

   This is motivated by the usual top-down approach for defining data
   structures, decomposing a big data structure unit into smaller parts;
   however, except for the root type, there is no need to strictly
   follow this sequence.

   (Note that there is no way to use a group as a root - it must be a
   type.  Using a group as the root might be employed as a way to
   specify a CBOR sequence in a future version of this specification;
   this would act as if that group is used in an array and the data
   items in that fictional array form the members of the CBOR sequence.)

3.  Syntax

   In this section, the overall syntax of CDDL is shown, alongside some
   examples just illustrating syntax.  (The definition will not attempt
   to be overly formal; refer to Appendix D for the details.)

3.1.  General conventions

   The basic syntax is inspired by ABNF [RFC5234], with

   o  rules, whether they define groups or types, are defined with a
      name, followed by an equals sign "=" and the actual definition
      according to the respective syntactic rules of that definition.

   o  A name can consist of any of the characters from the set {'A',
      ..., 'Z', 'a', ..., 'z', '0', ..., '9', '_', '-', '@', '.', '$'},
      starting with an alphabetic character (including '@', '_', '$')
      and ending in one or a digit.

      *  Names are case sensitive.

      *  It is preferred style to start a name with a lower case letter.



Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


      *  The hyphen is preferred over the underscore (except in a
         "bareword" (Section 3.5.1), where the semantics may actually
         require an underscore).

      *  The period may be useful for larger specifications, to express
         some module structure (as in "tcp.throughput" vs.
         "udp.throughput").

      *  A number of names are predefined in the CDDL prelude, as listed
         in Appendix E.

      *  Rule names (types or groups) do not appear in the actual CBOR
         encoding, but names used as "barewords" in member keys do.

   o  Comments are started by a ';' (semicolon) character and finish at
      the end of a line (LF or CRLF).

   o  outside strings, whitespace (spaces, newlines, and comments) is
      used to separate syntactic elements for readability (and to
      separate identifiers or numbers that follow each other); it is
      otherwise completely optional.

   o  Hexadecimal numbers are preceded by '0x' (without quotes, lower
      case x), and are case insensitive.  Similarly, binary numbers are
      preceded by '0b'.

   o  Text strings are enclosed by double quotation '"' characters.
      They follow the conventions for strings as defined in section 7 of
      [RFC7159].  (ABNF users may want to note that there is no support
      in CDDL for the concept of case insensitivity in text strings; if
      necessary, regular expressions can be used (Section 3.8.3).)

   o  Byte strings are enclosed by single quotation "'" characters and
      may be prefixed by "h" or "b64".  If unprefixed, the string is
      interpreted as with a text string, except that single quotes must
      be escaped and that the UTF-8 bytes resulting are marked as a byte
      string (major type 2).  If prefixed as "h" or "b64", the string is
      interpreted as a sequence of hex digits or a base64(url) string,
      respectively (as with the diagnostic notation in section 6 of
      [RFC7049]; cf. Appendix G.2); any white space present within the
      string (including comments) is ignored in the prefixed case.
      [_strings]

   o  CDDL uses UTF-8 [RFC3629] for its encoding.

   Example:





Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


                    ; This is a comment
                    person = { g }

                    g = (
                      "name": tstr,
                      age: int,  ; "age" is a bareword
                    )

3.2.  Occurrence

   An optional _occurrence_ indicator can be given in front of a group
   entry.  It is either one of the characters '?' (optional), '*' (zero
   or more), or '+' (one or more), or is of the form n*m, where n and m
   are optional unsigned integers and n is the lower limit (default 0)
   and m is the upper limit (default no limit) of occurrences.

   If no occurrence indicator is specified, the group entry is to occur
   exactly once (as if 1*1 were specified).

   Note that CDDL, outside any directives/annotations that could
   possibly be defined, does not make any prescription as to whether
   arrays or maps use the definite length or indefinite length encoding.
   I.e., there is no correlation between leaving the size of an array
   "open" in the spec and the fact that it is then interchanged with
   definite or indefinite length.

   Please also note that CDDL can describe flexibility that the data
   model of the target representation does not have.  This is rather
   obvious for JSON, but also is relevant for CBOR:

   apartment = {
     kitchen: size,
     * bedroom: size,
   }
   size = float ; in m2

   The previous specification does not mean that CBOR is changed to
   allow to use the key "bedroom" more than once.  In other words, due
   to the restrictions imposed by the data model, the third line pretty
   much turns into:

     ? bedroom: size,

   (Occurrence indicators beyond one still are useful in maps for groups
   that allow a variety of keys.)






Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


3.3.  Predefined names for types

   CDDL predefines a number of names.  This subsection summarizes these
   names, but please see Appendix E for the exact definitions.

   The following keywords for primitive datatypes are defined:

   "bool"  Boolean value (major type 7, additional information 20 or
      21).

   "uint"  An unsigned integer (major type 0).

   "nint"  A negative integer (major type 1).

   "int"  An unsigned integer or a negative integer.

   "float16"  IEEE 754 half-precision float (major type 7, additional
      information 25).

   "float32"  IEEE 754 single-precision float (major type 7, additional
      information 26).

   "float64"  IEEE 754 double-precision float (major type 7, additional
      information 27).

   "float"  One of float16, float32, or float64.

   "bstr" or "bytes"  A byte string (major type 2).

   "tstr" or "text"  Text string (major type 3)

   (Note that there are no predefined names for arrays or maps; these
   are defined with the syntax given below.)

   In addition, a number of types are defined in the prelude that are
   associated with CBOR tags, such as "tdate", "bigint", "regexp" etc.

3.4.  Arrays

   Array definitions surround a group with square brackets.

   For each entry, an occurrence indicator as specified in Section 3.2
   is permitted.

   For example:






Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


                     unlimited-people = [* person]
                     one-or-two-people = [1*2 person]
                     at-least-two-people = [2* person]
                     person = (
                         name: tstr,
                         age: uint,
                     )

   The group "person" is defined in such a way that repeating it in the
   array each time generates alternating names and ages, so these are
   four valid values for a data item of type "unlimited-people":

      ["roundlet", 1047, "psychurgy", 2204, "extrarhythmical", 2231]
      []
      ["aluminize", 212, "climograph", 4124]
      ["penintime", 1513, "endocarditis", 4084, "impermeator", 1669,
       "coextension", 865]

3.5.  Maps

   The syntax for specifying maps merits special attention, as well as a
   number of optimizations and conveniences, as it is likely to be the
   focal point of many specifications employing CDDL.  While the syntax
   does not strictly distinguish struct and table usage of maps, it
   caters specifically to each of them.

3.5.1.  Structs

   The "struct" usage of maps is similar to the way JSON objects are
   used in many JSON applications.

   A map is defined in the same way as defining an array (see
   Section 3.4), except for using curly braces "{}" instead of square
   brackets "[]".

   An occurrence indicator as specified in Section 3.2 is permitted for
   each group entry.

   The following is an example of a structure:












Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


         Geography = [
           city           : tstr,
           gpsCoordinates : GpsCoordinates,
         ]

         GpsCoordinates = {
           longitude      : uint,            ; multiplied by 10^7
           latitude       : uint,            ; multiplied by 10^7
         }

   When encoding, the Geography structure is encoded using a CBOR array
   with two entries (the keys for the group entries are ignored),
   whereas the GpsCoordinates are encoded as a CBOR map with two key/
   value pairs.

   Types used in a structure can be defined in separate rules or just in
   place (potentially placed inside parentheses, such as for choices).
   E.g.:

                           located-samples = {
                             sample-point: int,
                             samples: [+ float],
                           }


   where "located-samples" is the datatype to be used when referring to
   the struct, and "sample-point" and "samples" are the keys to be used.
   This is actually a complete example: an identifier that is followed
   by a colon can be directly used as the text string for a member key
   (we speak of a "bareword" member key), as can a double-quoted string
   or a number.  (When other types, in particular multi-valued ones, are
   used as keytypes, they are followed by a double arrow, see below.)

   If a text string key does not match the syntax for an identifier (or
   if the specifier just happens to prefer using double quotes), the
   text string syntax can also be used in the member key position,
   followed by a colon.  The above example could therefore have been
   written with quoted strings in the member key positions.

   All the types defined can be used in a keytype position by following
   them with a double arrow.  A string also is a (single-valued) type,
   so another form for this example is:

                         located-samples = {
                           "sample-point" => int,
                           "samples" => [+ float],
                         }




Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   A better way to demonstrate the double-arrow use may be:

             located-samples = {
               sample-point: int,
               samples: [+ float],
               * equipment-type => equipment-tolerances,
             }
             equipment-type = [name: tstr, manufacturer: tstr]
             equipment-tolerances = [+ [float, float]]

   The example below defines a struct with optional entries: display
   name (as a text string), the name components first name and family
   name (as a map of text strings), and age information (as an unsigned
   integer).

                          PersonalData = {
                            ? displayName: tstr,
                            NameComponents,
                            ? age: uint,
                          }

                          NameComponents = (
                            ? firstName: tstr,
                            ? familyName: tstr,
                          )

   Note that the group definition for NameComponents does not generate
   another map; instead, all four keys are directly in the struct built
   by PersonalData.

   In this example, all key/value pairs are optional from the
   perspective of CDDL.  With no occurrence indicator, an entry is
   mandatory.

   If the addition of more entries not specified by the current
   specification is desired, one can add this possibility explicitly:















Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


                          PersonalData = {
                            ? displayName: tstr,
                            NameComponents,
                            ? age: uint,
                            * tstr => any
                          }

                          NameComponents = (
                            ? firstName: tstr,
                            ? familyName: tstr,
                          )

            Figure 5: Personal Data: Example for extensibility

   The cddl tool (Appendix F) generated as one acceptable instance for
   this specification:

         {"familyName": "agust", "antiforeignism": "pretzel",
          "springbuck": "illuminatingly", "exuviae": "ephemeris",
          "kilometrage": "frogfish"}

   (See Section 3.9 for one way to explicitly identify an extension
   point.)

3.5.2.  Tables

   A table can be specified by defining a map with entries where the
   keytype is not single-valued, e.g.:

                         square-roots = {* x => y}
                         x = int
                         y = float

   Here, the key in each key/value pair has datatype x (defined as int),
   and the value has datatype y (defined as float).

   If the specification does not need to restrict one of x or y (i.e.,
   the application is free to choose per entry), it can be replaced by
   the predefined name "any".

   As another example, the following could be used as a conversion table
   converting from an integer or float to a string:

                      tostring = {* mynumber => tstr}
                      mynumber = int / float






Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


3.6.  Tags

   A type can make use of a CBOR tag (major type 6) by using the
   representation type notation, giving #6.nnn(type) where nnn is an
   unsigned integer giving the tag number and "type" is the type of the
   data item being tagged.

   For example, the following line from the CDDL prelude (Appendix E)
   defines "biguint" as a type name for a positive bignum N:

                           biguint = #6.2(bstr)

   The tags defined by [RFC7049] are included in the prelude.
   Additional tags since registered need to be added to a CDDL
   specification as needed; e.g., a binary UUID tag could be referenced
   as "buuid" in a specification after defining

                            buuid = #6.37(bstr)

   In the following example, usage of the tag 32 for URIs is optional:

                        my_uri = #6.32(tstr) / tstr

3.7.  Unwrapping

   The group that is used to define a map or an array can often be
   reused in the definition of another map or array.  Similarly, a type
   defined as a tag carries an internal data item that one would like to
   refer to.  In these cases, it is expedient to simply use the name of
   the map, array, or tag type as a handle for the group or type defined
   inside it.

   The "unwrap" operator (written by preceding a name by a tilde
   character "~") can be used to strip the type defined for a name by
   one layer, exposing the underlying group (for maps and arrays) or
   type (for tags).

   For example, an application might want to define a basic and an
   advanced header.  Without unwrapping, this might be done as follows:












Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   basic-header-group = (
     field1: int,
     field2: text,
   )

   basic-header = { basic-header-group }

   advanced-header = {
     basic-header-group,
     field3: bytes,
     field4: number, ; as in the tagged type "time"
   }

   Unwrapping simplifies this to:

   basic-header = {
     field1: int,
     field2: text,
   }

   advanced-header = {
     ~basic-header,
     field3: bytes,
     field4: ~time,
   }

   (Note that leaving out the first unwrap operator in the latter
   example would lead to nesting the basic-header in its own map inside
   the advanced-header, while, with the unwrapped basic-header, the
   definition of the group inside basic-header is essentially repeated
   inside advanced-header, leading to a single map.  This can be used
   for various applications often solved by inheritance in programming
   languages.  The effect of unwrapping can also be described as
   "threading in" the group or type inside the referenced type, which
   suggested the thread-like "~" character.)

3.8.  Controls

   A _control_ allows to relate a _target_ type with a _controller_ type
   via a _control operator_.

   The syntax for a control type is "target .control-operator
   controller", where control operators are special identifiers prefixed
   by a dot.  (Note that _target_ or _controller_ might need to be
   parenthesized.)






Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   A number of control operators are defined at his point.  Note that
   the CDDL tool does not currently support combining multiple controls
   on a single target.

3.8.1.  Control operator .size

   A ".size" control controls the size of the target in bytes by the
   control type.  Examples:

                   full-address = [[+ label], ip4, ip6]
                   ip4 = bstr .size 4
                   ip6 = bstr .size 16
                   label = bstr .size (1..63)

                    Figure 6: Control for size in bytes

   When applied to an unsigned integer, the ".size" control restricts
   the range of that integer by giving a maximum number of bytes that
   should be needed in a computer representation of that unsigned
   integer.  In other words, "uint .size N" is equivalent to
   "0...BYTES_N", where BYTES_N == 256**N.

      audio_sample = uint .size 3 ; 24-bit, equivalent to 0..16777215

                Figure 7: Control for integer size in bytes

   Note that, as with value restrictions in CDDL, this control is not a
   representation constraint; a number that fits into fewer bytes can
   still be represented in that form, and an inefficient implementation
   could use a longer form (unless that is restricted by some format
   constraints outside of CDDL, such as the rules in Section 3.9 of
   [RFC7049]).

3.8.2.  Control operator .bits

   A ".bits" control on a byte string indicates that, in the target,
   only the bits numbered by a number in the control type are allowed to
   be set.  (Bits are counted the usual way, bit number "n" being set in
   "str" meaning that "(str[n >> 3] & (1 << (n & 7))) != 0".)
   [_bitsendian]

   Similarly, a ".bits" control on an unsigned integer "i" indicates
   that for all unsigned integers "n" where "(i & (1 << n)) != 0", "n"
   must be in the control type.







Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


                      tcpflagbytes = bstr .bits flags
                      flags = &(
                        fin: 8,
                        syn: 9,
                        rst: 10,
                        psh: 11,
                        ack: 12,
                        urg: 13,
                        ece: 14,
                        cwr: 15,
                        ns: 0,
                      ) / (4..7) ; data offset bits

                      rwxbits = uint .bits rwx
                      rwx = &(r: 2, w: 1, x: 0)

                Figure 8: Control for what bits can be set

   The CDDL tool generates the following ten example instances for
   "tcpflagbytes":

      h'906d' h'01fc' h'8145' h'01b7' h'013d' h'409f' h'018e' h'c05f'
      h'01fa' h'01fe'

   These examples do not illustrate that the above CDDL specification
   does not explicitly specify a size of two bytes: A valid all clear
   instance of flag bytes could be "h''" or "h'00'" or even "h'000000'"
   as well.

3.8.3.  Control operator .regexp

   A ".regexp" control indicates that the text string given as a target
   needs to match the PCRE regular expression given as a value in the
   control type, where that regular expression is anchored on both
   sides.  (If anchoring is not desired for a side, ".*" needs to be
   inserted there.)

                 nai = tstr .regexp "\\w+@\\w+(\\.\\w+)+"

                   Figure 9: Control with a PCRE regexp

   The CDDL tool proposes:

                       "N1@CH57HF.4Znqe0.dYJRN.igjf"







Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


3.8.4.  Control operators .cbor and .cborseq

   A ".cbor" control on a byte string indicates that the byte string
   carries a CBOR encoded data item.  Decoded, the data item matches the
   type given as the right-hand side argument (type1 in the following
   example).

      "bytes .cbor type1"

   Similarly, a ".cborseq" control on a byte string indicates that the
   byte string carries a sequence of CBOR encoded data items.  When the
   data items are taken as an array, the array matches the type given as
   the right-hand side argument (type2 in the following example).

      "bytes .cborseq type2"

   (The conversion of the encoded sequence to an array can be effected
   for instance by wrapping the byte string between the two bytes 0x9f
   and 0xff and decoding the wrapped byte string as a CBOR encoded data
   item.)

3.8.5.  Control operators .within and .and

   A ".and" control on a type indicates that the data item matches both
   that left hand side type and the type given as the right hand side.
   (Formally, the resulting type is the intersection of the two types
   given.)

      "type1 .and type2"

   A variant of the ".and" control is the ".within" control, which
   expresses an additional intent: the left hand side type is meant to
   be a subset of the right-hand-side type.

      "type1 .within type2"

   While both forms have the identical formal semantics (intersection),
   the intention of the ".within" form is that the right hand side gives
   guidance to the types allowed on the left hand side, which typically
   is a socket (Section 3.9):

   message = $message .within message-structure
   message-structure = [message_type, *message_option]
   message_type = 0..255
   message_option = any

   $message /= [3, dough: text, topping: [* text]]
   $message /= [4, noodles: text, sauce: text, parmesan: bool]



Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   For ".within", a tool might flag an error if type1 allows data items
   that are not allowed by type2.  In contrast, for ".and", there is no
   expectation that type1 already is a subset of type2.

3.8.6.  Control operators .lt, .le, .gt, .ge, .eq, .ne, and .default

   The controls .lt, .le, .gt, .ge, .eq, .ne specify a constraint on the
   left hand side type to be a value less than, less than or equal,
   equal to, not equal to, greather than, or greater than or equal to a
   value given as a (single-valued) right hand side type.  In the
   present specification, the first four controls (.lt, .le, .gt, .ge)
   are defined only for numeric types, as these have a natural ordering
   relationship.

   speed = number .ge 0  ; unit: m/s

   A variant of the ".ne" control is the ".default" control, which
   expresses an additional intent: the value specified by the right-
   hand-side type is intended as a default value for the left hand side
   type given, and the implied .ne control is there to prevent this
   value from being sent over the wire.  This control is only meaningful
   when the controld type is used in an optional context; otherwise
   there would be no way to express the default value.

   timer = {
     time: uint,
     ? displayed-step: (number .gt 0) .default 1
   }

3.9.  Socket/Plug

   Both for type choices and group choices, a mechanism is defined that
   facilitates starting out with empty choices and assembling them
   later, potentially in separate files that are concatenated to build
   the full specification.

   Per convention, CDDL extension points are marked with a leading
   dollar sign (types) or two leading dollar signs (groups).  Tools
   honor that convention by not raising an error if such a type or group
   is not defined at all; the symbol is then taken to be an empty type
   choice (group choice), i.e., no choice is available.










Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


            tcp-header = {seq: uint, ack: uint, * $$tcp-option}

            ; later, in a different file

            $$tcp-option //= (
            sack: [+(left: uint, right: uint)]
            )

            ; and, maybe in another file

            $$tcp-option //= (
            sack-permitted: true
            )

   Names that start with a single "$" are "type sockets", names with a
   double "$$" are "group sockets".  It is not an error if there is no
   definition for a socket at all; this then means there is no way to
   satisfy the rule (i.e., the choice is empty).

   All definitions (plugs) for socket names must be augmentations, i.e.,
   they must be using "/=" and "//=", respectively.

   To pick up the example illustrated in Figure 5, the socket/plug
   mechanism could be used as shown in Figure 10:



























Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


                     PersonalData = {
                       ? displayName: tstr,
                       NameComponents,
                       ? age: uint,
                       * $$personaldata-extensions
                     }

                     NameComponents = (
                       ? firstName: tstr,
                       ? familyName: tstr,
                     )

                     ; The above already works as is.
                     ; But then, we can add later:

                     $$personaldata-extensions //= (
                       favorite-salsa: tstr,
                     )

                     ; and again, somewhere else:

                     $$personaldata-extensions //= (
                       shoesize: uint,
                     )

     Figure 10: Personal Data example: Using socket/plug extensibility

3.10.  Generics

   Using angle brackets, the left hand side of a rule can add formal
   parameters after the name being defined, as in:

      messages = message<"reboot", "now"> / message<"sleep", 1..100>
      message<t, v> = {type: t, value: v}

   When using a generic rule, the formal parameters are bound to the
   actual arguments supplied (also using angle brackets), within the
   scope of the generic rule (as if there were a rule of the form
   parameter = argument).

   (There are some limitations to nesting of generics in Appendix F at
   this time.)

3.11.  Operator Precedence

   As with any language that has multiple syntactic features such as
   prefix and infix operators, CDDL has operators that bind more tightly
   than others.  This is becoming more complicated than, say, in ABNF,



Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   as CDDL has both types and groups, with operators that are specific
   to these concepts.  Type operators (such as "/" for type choice)
   operate on types, while group operators (such as "//" for group
   choice) operate on groups.  Types can simply be used in groups, but
   groups need to be bracketed (as arrays or maps) to become types.  So,
   type operators naturally bind closer than group operators.

   For instance, in

   t = [group1]
   group1 = (a / b // c / d)
   a = 1 b = 2 c = 3 d = 4

   group1 is a group choice between the type choice of a and b and the
   type choice of c and d.  This becomes more relevant once member keys
   and/or occurrences are added in:

   t = {group2}
   group2 = (? ab: a / b // cd: c / d)
   a = 1 b = 2 c = 3 d = 4

   is a group choice between the optional member "ab" of type a or b and
   the member "cd" of type c or d.  Note that the optionality is
   attached to the first choice ("ab"), not to the second choice.

   Similarly, in

   t = [group3]
   group3 = (+ a / b / c)
   a = 1 b = 2 c = 3

   group3 is a repetition of a type choice between a, b, and c [unflex];
   if just a is to be repeatable, a group choice is needed to focus the
   occurrence:

   t = [group4]
   group4 = (+ a // b / c)
   a = 1 b = 2 c = 3

   group4 is a group choice between a repeatable a and a single b or c.

   In general, as with many other languages with operator precedence
   rules, it is best not to rely on them, but to insert parentheses for
   readability:

   t = [group4a]
   group4a = ((+ a) // (b / c))
   a = 1 b = 2 c = 3



Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   The operator precedences, in sequence of loose to tight binding, are
   defined in Appendix D and summarized in Table 1.  (Arities given are
   1 for unary prefix operators and 2 for binary infix operators.)

           +----------+----+---------------------------+------+
           | Operator | Ar | Operates on               | Prec |
           +----------+----+---------------------------+------+
           |    =     |  2 | name = type, name = group |    1 |
           |    /=    |  2 | name /= type              |    1 |
           |   //=    |  2 | name //= group            |    1 |
           |    //    |  2 | group // group            |    2 |
           |    ,     |  2 | group, group              |    3 |
           |    *     |  1 | * group                   |    4 |
           |   N*M    |  1 | N*M group                 |    4 |
           |    +     |  1 | + group                   |    4 |
           |    ?     |  1 | ? group                   |    4 |
           |    =>    |  2 | type => type              |    5 |
           |    :     |  2 | name: type                |    5 |
           |    /     |  2 | type / type               |    6 |
           |    &     |  1 | &group                    |    6 |
           |    ..    |  2 | type..type                |    7 |
           |   ...    |  2 | type...type               |    7 |
           |  .anno   |  2 | type .anno type           |    7 |
           +----------+----+---------------------------+------+

                 Table 1: Summary of operator precedences

4.  Making Use of CDDL

   In this section, we discuss several potential ways to employ CDDL.

4.1.  As a guide to a human user

   CDDL can be used to efficiently define the layout of CBOR data, such
   that a human implementer can easily see how data is supposed to be
   encoded.

   Since CDDL maps parts of the CBOR data to human readable names, tools
   could be built that use CDDL to provide a human friendly
   representation of the CBOR data, and allow them to edit such data
   while remaining compliant to its CDDL definition.

4.2.  For automated checking of CBOR data structure

   CDDL has been specified such that a machine can handle the CDDL
   definition and related CBOR data (and, thus, also JSON data).  For
   example, a machine could use CDDL to check whether or not CBOR data
   is compliant to its definition.



Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   The need for thoroughness of such compliance checking depends on the
   application.  For example, an application may decide not to check the
   data structure at all, and use the CDDL definition solely as a means
   to indicate the structure of the data to the programmer.

   On the other end, the application may also implement a checking
   mechanism that goes as far as checking that all mandatory map members
   are available.

   The matter in how far the data description must be enforced by an
   application is left to the designers and implementers of that
   application, keeping in mind related security considerations.

   In no case the intention is that a CDDL tool would be "writing code"
   for an implementation.

4.3.  For data analysis tools

   In the long run, it can be expected that more and more data will be
   stored using the CBOR data format.

   Where there is data, there is data analysis and the need to process
   such data automatically.  CDDL can be used for such automated data
   processing, allowing tools to verify data, clean it, and extract
   particular parts of interest from it.

   Since CBOR is designed with constrained devices in mind, a likely use
   of it would be small sensors.  An interesting use would thus be
   automated analysis of sensor data.

5.  Security considerations

   This document presents a content rules language for expressing CBOR
   data structures.  As such, it does not bring any security issues on
   itself, although specification of protocols that use CBOR naturally
   need security analysis when defined.

   Topics that could be considered in a security considerations section
   that uses CDDL to define CBOR structures include the following:

   o  Where could the language maybe cause confusion in a way that will
      enable security issues?

6.  IANA considerations

   This document does not require any IANA registrations.





Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


7.  Acknowledgements

   CDDL was originally conceived by Bert Greevenbosch, who also wrote
   the original five versions of this document.

   Inspiration was taken from the C and Pascal languages, MPEG's
   conventions for describing structures in the ISO base media file
   format, Relax-NG and its compact syntax [RELAXNG], and in particular
   from Andrew Lee Newton's "JSON Content Rules"
   [I-D.newton-json-content-rules].

   Useful feedback came from Joe Hildebrand, Sean Leonard and Jim
   Schaad.

   The CDDL tool was written by Carsten Bormann, building on previous
   work by Troy Heninger and Tom Lord.

8.  References

8.1.  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>.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
              2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

   [RFC7049]  Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
              Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
              October 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7493]  Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7493>.





Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-anima-grasp]
              Bormann, C., Carpenter, B., and B. Liu, "A Generic
              Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP)", draft-ietf-anima-
              grasp-14 (work in progress), July 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-core-senml]
              Jennings, C., Shelby, Z., Arkko, J., Keranen, A., and C.
              Bormann, "Media Types for Sensor Measurement Lists
              (SenML)", draft-ietf-core-senml-10 (work in progress),
              July 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-cose-msg]
              Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
              draft-ietf-cose-msg-24 (work in progress), November 2016.

   [I-D.newton-json-content-rules]
              Newton, A. and P. Cordell, "A Language for Rules
              Describing JSON Content", draft-newton-json-content-
              rules-08 (work in progress), March 2017.

   [RELAXNG]  OASIS, "RELAX-NG Compact Syntax", November 2002,
              <http://relaxng.org/compact-20021121.html>.

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

   [RFC7071]  Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Media Type for
              Reputation Interchange", RFC 7071, DOI 10.17487/RFC7071,
              November 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7071>.

   [RFC8007]  Murray, R. and B. Niven-Jenkins, "Content Delivery Network
              Interconnection (CDNI) Control Interface / Triggers",
              RFC 8007, DOI 10.17487/RFC8007, December 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8007>.

Appendix A.  Cemetery

   The following ideas have been buried in the discussions leading up to
   the present specification:

   o  <...> as syntax for enumerations.  We view values to be just
      another type (a very specific type with just one member), so that
      an enumeration can be denoted as a choice using "/" as the
      delimiter of choices.  Because of this, no evidence is present
      that a separate syntax for enumerations is needed.



Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


A.1.  Resolved Issues

   o  The key/value pairs in maps have no fixed ordering.  One could
      imagine situations where fixing the ordering may be of use.  For
      example, a decoder could look for values related with integer keys
      1, 3 and 7.  If the order were fixed and the decoder encounters
      the key 4 without having encountered key 3, it could conclude that
      key 3 is not available without doing more complicated bookkeeping.
      Unfortunately, neither JSON nor CBOR support this, so no attempt
      was made to support this in CDDL either.

   o  CDDL distinguishes the various CBOR number types, but there is
      only one number type in JSON.  There is no effect in specifying a
      precision (float16/float32/float64) when using CDDL for specifying
      JSON data structures.  (The current validator implementation
      Appendix F does not handle this very well, either.)

Appendix B.  (Not used.)

Appendix C.  Change Log

   Changes from version 00 to version 01:

   o  Removed constants

   o  Updated the tag mechanism

   o  Extended the map structure

   o  Added examples

   Changes from version 01 to version 02:

   o  Fixed example

   Changes from version 02 to version 03:

   o  Added information about characters used in names

   o  Added text about an overall data structure and order of definition
      of fields

   o  Added text about encoding of keys

   o  Added table with keywords

   o  Strings and integer writing conventions




Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   o  Added ABNF

   Changes from version 03 to version 04:

   o  Removed optional fields for non-maps

   o  Defined all key/value pairs in maps are considered optional from
      the CDDL perspective

   o  Allow omission of type of keys for maps with only text string and
      integer keys

   o  Changed order of definitions

   o  Updated fruit and moves examples

   o  Renamed the "Philosophy" section to "Using CDDL", and added more
      text about CDDL usage

   o  Several editorials

   Changes from version 04 to version 05:

   o  Added text about alternative datatypes and any datatype

   o  Fixed typos

   o  Restructured syntax and semantics

   Changes from version 05 to version 05:

   o  Fixed the ABNF for choices (no longer need to write a: (b/c))

   o  Added group choices (//)

   o  Added /= and //=

   o  Added experimental socket/plug

   o  Added aliases text, bytes, null to prelude

   o  Documented generics

   o  Fixed more typos

   Changes from 06 to 07:

   o  .cbor, .cborseq, .within, .and



Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   o  Define .size on uint

   o  Extended Diagnostic Notation

   o  Precedence discussion and table

   o  Remove some of the "issues" that can only be understood with
      historical context

   o  Prefer "text" over "tstr" in some of the examples

   o  Add "unsigned" to the prelude

   Changes from 07 to 08:

   o  .lt, .le, .eq, .ne, .gt, .ge

   o  .default

   Changes from 08 to 09:

   o  Take annotations and socket/plug out of the nursery; they have
      been battle-proven enough.

   o  Define a value notation for byte strings as well.

   o  Removed discussion section that was no longer relevant; move
      "Resolved Issues" to appendix.

   Changes from 09 to 10:

   o  Remove a long but not very elucidating example.  (Maybe we'll add
      back some shorter examples later.)

   o  A few clarifications.

   o  Updated author list.

   Changes from 10 to 11:

   o  Define unwrapping operator ~

   o  Change term for annotation into "control" (but leave "annotate"
      for when it actually is meant in that sense)







Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


Appendix D.  ABNF grammar

   The following is a formal definition of the CDDL syntax in Augmented
   Backus-Naur Form (ABNF, [RFC5234]).  [_abnftodo]

   cddl = S 1*rule
   rule = typename [genericparm] S assign S type S
        / groupname [genericparm] S assign S grpent S

   typename = id
   groupname = id

   assign = "=" / "/=" / "//="

   genericparm = "<" S id S *("," S id S ) ">"
   genericarg = "<" S type1 S *("," S type1 S ) ">"

   type = type1 S *("/" S type1 S)

   type1 = type2 [S (rangeop / ctlop) S type2]

   type2 = value
         / typename [genericarg]
         / "(" type ")"
         / "~" S groupname [genericarg]
         / "#" "6" ["." uint] "(" S type S ")" ; note no space!
         / "#" DIGIT ["." uint]                ; major/ai
         / "#"                                 ; any
         / "{" S group S "}"
         / "[" S group S "]"
         / "&" S "(" S group S ")"
         / "&" S groupname [genericarg]

   rangeop = "..." / ".."

   ctlop = "." id

   group = grpchoice S *("//" S grpchoice S)

   grpchoice = *grpent

   grpent = [occur S] [memberkey S] type optcom
          / [occur S] groupname [genericarg] optcom ; preempted by above
          / [occur S] "(" S group S ")" optcom

   memberkey = type1 S "=>"
             / bareword S ":"
             / value S ":"



Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 35]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   bareword = id

   optcom = S ["," S]

   occur = [uint] "*" [uint]
         / "+"
         / "?"

   uint = ["0x" / "0b"] "0"
        / DIGIT1 *DIGIT
        / "0x" 1*HEXDIG
        / "0b" 1*BINDIG

   value = number
         / text
         / bytes

   int = ["-"] uint

   ; This is a float if it has fraction or exponent; int otherwise
   number = int ["." fraction] ["e" exponent ]
   fraction = 1*DIGIT
   exponent = int

   text = %x22 *SCHAR %x22
   SCHAR = %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-10FFFD / SESC
   SESC = "\" %x20-10FFFD

   bytes = [bsqual] %x27 *BCHAR %x27
   BCHAR = %x20-26 / %x28-5B / %x5D-10FFFD / SESC / CRLF
   bsqual = %x68 ; "h"
          / %x62.36.34 ; "b64"

   id = EALPHA *(*("-" / ".") (EALPHA / DIGIT))
   ALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A
   EALPHA = %x41-5A / %x61-7A / "@" / "_" / "$"
   DIGIT = %x30-39
   DIGIT1 = %x31-39
   HEXDIG = DIGIT / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
   BINDIG = %x30-31

   S = *WS
   WS = SP / NL
   SP = %x20
   NL = COMMENT / CRLF
   COMMENT = ";" *PCHAR CRLF
   PCHAR = %x20-10FFFD
   CRLF = %x0A / %x0D.0A



Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 36]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


                           Figure 11: CDDL ABNF

Appendix E.  Standard Prelude

   The following prelude is automatically added to each CDDL file
   [tdate].  (Note that technically, it is a postlude, as it does not
   disturb the selection of the first rule as the root of the
   definition.)











































Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 37]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


                  any = #

                  uint = #0
                  nint = #1
                  int = uint / nint

                  bstr = #2
                  bytes = bstr
                  tstr = #3
                  text = tstr

                  tdate = #6.0(tstr)
                  time = #6.1(number)
                  number = int / float
                  biguint = #6.2(bstr)
                  bignint = #6.3(bstr)
                  bigint = biguint / bignint
                  integer = int / bigint
                  unsigned = uint / biguint
                  decfrac = #6.4([e10: int, m: integer])
                  bigfloat = #6.5([e2: int, m: integer])
                  eb64url = #6.21(any)
                  eb64legacy = #6.22(any)
                  eb16 = #6.23(any)
                  encoded-cbor = #6.24(bstr)
                  uri = #6.32(tstr)
                  b64url = #6.33(tstr)
                  b64legacy = #6.34(tstr)
                  regexp = #6.35(tstr)
                  mime-message = #6.36(tstr)
                  cbor-any = #6.55799(any)

                  float16 = #7.25
                  float32 = #7.26
                  float64 = #7.27
                  float16-32 = float16 / float32
                  float32-64 = float32 / float64
                  float = float16-32 / float64

                  false = #7.20
                  true = #7.21
                  bool = false / true
                  nil = #7.22
                  null = nil
                  undefined = #7.23


                          Figure 12: CDDL Prelude



Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 38]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   Note that the prelude is deemed to be fixed.  This means, for
   instance, that additional tags beyond [RFC7049], as registered, need
   to be defined in each CDDL file that is using them.

   A common stumbling point is that the prelude does not define a type
   "string".  CBOR has byte strings ("bytes" in the prelude) and text
   strings ("text"), so a type that is simply called "string" would be
   ambiguous.

E.1.  Use with JSON

   The JSON generic data model (implicit in [RFC7159]) is a subset of
   the generic data model of CBOR.  So one can use CDDL with JSON by
   limiting oneself to what can be represented in JSON.  Roughly
   speaking, this means leaving out byte strings, tags, and simple
   values other than "false", "true", and "null", leading to the
   following limited prelude:

                      any = #

                      uint = #0
                      nint = #1
                      int = uint / nint

                      tstr = #3
                      text = tstr

                      number = int / float

                      float16 = #7.25
                      float32 = #7.26
                      float64 = #7.27
                      float16-32 = float16 / float32
                      float32-64 = float32 / float64
                      float = float16-32 / float64

                      false = #7.20
                      true = #7.21
                      bool = false / true
                      nil = #7.22
                      null = nil


             Figure 13: JSON compatible subset of CDDL Prelude

   (The major types given here do not have a direct meaning in JSON, but
   they can be interpreted as CBOR major types translated through
   Section 4 of [RFC7049].)



Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 39]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   There are a few fine points in using CDDL with JSON.  First, JSON
   does not distinguish between integers and floating point numbers;
   there is only one kind of number (which may happen to be integral).
   In this context, specifying a type as "uint", "nint" or "int" then
   becomes a predicate that the number be integral.  As an example, this
   means that the following JSON numbers are all matching "uint":

   10 10.0 1e1 1.0e1 100e-1

   (The fact that these are all integers may be surprising to users
   accustomed to the long tradition in programming languages of using
   decimal points or exponents in a number to indicate a floating point
   literal.)

   Fundamentally, the number system of JSON itself is based on decimal
   numbers and decimal fractions and does not have limits to its
   precision or range.  In practice, JSON numbers are often parsed into
   a number type that is called float64 here, creating a number of
   limitations to the generic data model [RFC7493].  In particular, this
   means that integers can only be expressed with interoperable
   exactness when they lie in the range [-(2**53)+1, (2**53)-1] -- a
   smaller range than that covered by CDDL "int".

   JSON applications that want to stay compatible with I-JSON therefore
   may want to define integer types with more limited ranges, such as in
   Figure 14.  Note that the types given here are not part of the
   prelude; they need to be copied into the CDDL specification if
   needed.

               ij-uint = 0..9007199254740991
               ij-nint = -9007199254740991..-1
               ij-int = -9007199254740991..9007199254740991

          Figure 14: I-JSON types for CDDL (not part of prelude)

   JSON applications that do not need to stay compatible with I-JSON and
   that actually may need to go beyond the 64-bit unsigned and negative
   integers supported by "int" (= "uint"/"nint") may want to use the
   following additional types from the standard prelude, which are
   expressed in terms of tags but can straightforwardly be mapped into
   JSON (but not I-JSON) numbers:

   biguint = #6.2(bstr)
   bignint = #6.3(bstr)
   bigint = biguint / bignint
   integer = int / bigint
   unsigned = uint / biguint




Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 40]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   CDDL at this point does not have a way to express the unlimited
   floating point precision that is theoretically possible with JSON; at
   the time of writing, this is rarely used in protocols in practice.

   Note that a data model described in CDDL is always restricted by what
   can be expressed in the serialization; e.g., floating point values
   such as NaN (not a number) and the infinities cannot be represented
   in JSON even if they are allowed in the CDDL generic data model.

Appendix F.  The CDDL tool

   A rough CDDL tool is available.  For CDDL specifications, it can
   check the syntax, generate one or more instances (expressed in CBOR
   diagnostic notation or in pretty-printed JSON), and validate an
   existing instance against the specification:

                   Usage:
                   cddl spec.cddl generate [n]
                   cddl spec.cddl json-generate [n]
                   cddl spec.cddl validate instance.cbor
                   cddl spec.cddl validate instance.json

                        Figure 15: CDDL tool usage

   Install on a system with a modern Ruby via:

                             gem install cddl

                     Figure 16: CDDL tool installation

   The accompanying CBOR diagnostic tools (which are automatically
   installed by the above) are described in https://github.com/cabo/
   cbor-diag; they can be used to convert between binary CBOR, a pretty-
   printed form of that, CBOR diagnostic notation, JSON, and YAML.

Appendix G.  Extended Diagnostic Notation

   Section 6 of [RFC7049] defines a "diagnostic notation" in order to be
   able to converse about CBOR data items without having to resort to
   binary data.  Diagnostic notation is based on JSON, with extensions
   for representing CBOR constructs such as binary data and tags.

   (Standardizing this together with the actual interchange format does
   not serve to create another interchange format, but enables the use
   of a shared diagnostic notation in tools for and documents about
   CBOR.)





Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 41]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   This section discusses a few extensions to the diagnostic notation
   that have turned out to be useful since RFC 7049 was written.  We
   refer to the result as extended diagnostic notation (EDN).

G.1.  White space in byte string notation

   Examples often benefit from some white space (spaces, line breaks) in
   byte strings.  In extended diagnostic notation, white space is
   ignored in prefixed byte strings; for instance, the following are
   equivalent:

     h'48656c6c6f20776f726c64'
     h'48 65 6c 6c 6f 20 77 6f 72 6c 64'
     h'4 86 56c 6c6f
       20776 f726c64'

G.2.  Text in byte string notation

   Diagnostic notation notates Byte strings in one of the [RFC4648] base
   encodings,, enclosed in single quotes, prefixed by >h< for base16,
   >b32< for base32, >h32< for base32hex, >b64< for base64 or base64url.
   Quite often, byte strings carry bytes that are meaningfully
   interpreted as UTF-8 text.  Extended Diagnostic Notation allows the
   use of single quotes without a prefix to express byte strings with
   UTF-8 text; for instance, the following are equivalent:

   'hello world'
   h'68656c6c6f20776f726c64'

   The escaping rules of JSON strings are applied equivalently for text-
   based byte strings, e.g., \ stands for a single backslash and '
   stands for a single quote.  White space is included literally, i.e.,
   the previous section does not apply to text-based byte strings.

G.3.  Embedded CBOR and CBOR sequences in byte strings

   Where a byte string is to carry an embedded CBOR-encoded item, or
   more generally a sequence of zero or more such items, the diagnostic
   notation for these zero or more CBOR data items, separated by
   commata, can be enclosed in << and >> to notate the byte string
   resulting from encoding the data items and concatenating the result.
   For instance, each pair of columns in the following are equivalent:

   <<1>>              h'01'
   <<1, 2>>           h'0102'
   <<"foo", null>>    h'63666F6FF6'
   <<>>               h''




Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 42]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


G.4.  Concatenated Strings

   While the ability to include white space enables line-breaking of
   encoded byte strings, a mechanism is needed to be able to include
   text strings as well as byte strings in direct UTF-8 representation
   into line-based documents (such as RFCs and source code).

   We extend the diagnostic notation by allowing multiple text strings
   or multiple byte strings to be notated separated by white space,
   these are then concatenated into a single text or byte string,
   respectively.  Text strings and byte strings do not mix within such a
   concatenation, except that byte string notation can be used inside a
   sequence of concatenated text string notation to encode characters
   that may be better represented in an encoded way.  The following four
   values are equivalent:

   "Hello world"
   "Hello " "world"
   "Hello" h'20' "world"
   "" h'48656c6c6f20776f726c64' ""

   Similarly, the following byte string values are equivalent

   'Hello world'
   'Hello ' 'world'
   'Hello ' h'776f726c64'
   'Hello' h'20' 'world'
   '' h'48656c6c6f20776f726c64' '' b64''
   h'4 86 56c 6c6f' h' 20776 f726c64'

   (Note that the approach of separating by whitespace, while familiar
   from the C language, requires some attention - a single comma makes a
   big difference here.)

G.5.  Hexadecimal, octal, and binary numbers

   In addition to JSON's decimal numbers, EDN provides hexadecimal,
   octal and binary numbers in the usual C-language notation (octal with
   0o prefix present only).

   The following are equivalent:

   4711
   0x1267
   0o11147
   0b1001001100111

   As are:



Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 43]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   1.5
   0x1.8p0
   0x18p-4

G.6.  Comments

   Longer pieces of diagnostic notation may benefit from comments.  JSON
   famously does not provide for comments, and basic RFC 7049 diagnostic
   notation inherits this property.

   In extended diagnostic notation, comments can be included, delimited
   by slashes ("/").  Any text within and including a pair of slashes is
   considered a comment.

   Comments are considered white space.  Hence, they are allowed in
   prefixed byte strings; for instance, the following are equivalent:

   h'68656c6c6f20776f726c64'
   h'68 65 6c /doubled l!/ 6c 6f /hello/
     20 /space/
     77 6f 72 6c 64' /world/

   This can be used to annotate a CBOR structure as in:

   /grasp-message/ [/M_DISCOVERY/ 1, /session-id/ 10584416,
                    /objective/ [/objective-name/ "opsonize",
                                 /D, N, S/ 7, /loop-count/ 105]]

   (There are currently no end-of-line comments.  If we want to add
   them, "//" sounds like a reasonable delimiter given that we already
   use slashes for comments, but we also could go e.g. for "#".)

Appendix H.  Examples

   This section contains various examples of structures defined using
   CDDL.

   The theme for the first example is taken from [RFC7071], which
   defines certain JSON structures in English.  For a similar example,
   it may also be of interest to examine Appendix A of [RFC8007], which
   contains a CDDL definition for a JSON structure defined in the main
   body of the RFC.

   The second subsection in this appendix translates examples from
   [I-D.newton-json-content-rules] into CDDL.

   These examples all happen to describe data that is interchanged in
   JSON.  Examples for CDDL definitions of data that is interchanged in



Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 44]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   CBOR can be found in [I-D.ietf-cose-msg], [I-D.ietf-anima-grasp], or
   [I-D.ietf-core-senml].

H.1.  RFC 7071

   [RFC7071] defines the Reputon structure for JSON using somewhat
   formalized English text.  Here is a (somewhat verbose) equivalent
   definition using the same terms, but notated in CDDL:

                 reputation-object = {
                   reputation-context,
                   reputon-list
                 }

                 reputation-context = (
                   application: text
                 )

                 reputon-list = (
                   reputons: reputon-array
                 )

                 reputon-array = [* reputon]

                 reputon = {
                   rater-value,
                   assertion-value,
                   rated-value,
                   rating-value,
                   ? conf-value,
                   ? normal-value,
                   ? sample-value,
                   ? gen-value,
                   ? expire-value,
                   * ext-value,
                 }

                 rater-value = ( rater: text )
                 assertion-value = ( assertion: text )
                 rated-value = ( rated: text )
                 rating-value = ( rating: float16 )
                 conf-value = ( confidence: float16 )
                 normal-value = ( normal-rating: float16 )
                 sample-value = ( sample-size: uint )
                 gen-value = ( generated: uint )
                 expire-value = ( expires: uint )
                 ext-value = ( text => any )




Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 45]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   An equivalent, more compact form of this example would be:

                        reputation-object = {
                          application: text
                          reputons: [* reputon]
                        }

                        reputon = {
                          rater: text
                          assertion: text
                          rated: text
                          rating: float16
                          ? confidence: float16
                          ? normal-rating: float16
                          ? sample-size: uint
                          ? generated: uint
                          ? expires: uint
                          * text => any
                        }

   Note how this rather clearly delineates the structure somewhat
   shrouded by so many words in section 6.2.2. of [RFC7071].  Also, this
   definition makes it clear that several ext-values are allowed (by
   definition with different member names); RFC 7071 could be read to
   forbid the repetition of ext-value ("A specific reputon-element MUST
   NOT appear more than once" is ambiguous.)

   The CDDL tool (which hasn't quite been trained for polite
   conversation) says:






















Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 46]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


                {
                  "application": "tridentiferous",
                  "reputons": [
                    {
                      "rater": "loamily",
                      "assertion": "Dasyprocta",
                      "rated": "uncommensurableness",
                      "rating": 0.05055809746548934,
                      "confidence": 0.7484706448605812,
                      "normal-rating": 0.8677887734049299,
                      "sample-size": 4059,
                      "expires": 3969,
                      "bearer": "nitty",
                      "faucal": "postulnar",
                      "naturalism": "sarcotic"
                    },
                    {
                      "rater": "precreed",
                      "assertion": "xanthosis",
                      "rated": "balsamy",
                      "rating": 0.36091333590593955,
                      "confidence": 0.3700759808403371,
                      "sample-size": 3904
                    },
                    {
                      "rater": "urinosexual",
                      "assertion": "malacostracous",
                      "rated": "arenariae",
                      "rating": 0.9210673488013762,
                      "normal-rating": 0.4778762617112776,
                      "sample-size": 4428,
                      "generated": 3294,
                      "backfurrow": "enterable",
                      "fruitgrower": "flannelflower"
                    },
                    {
                      "rater": "pedologistically",
                      "assertion": "unmetaphysical",
                      "rated": "elocutionist",
                      "rating": 0.42073613384304287,
                      "misimagine": "retinaculum",
                      "snobbish": "contradict",
                      "Bosporanic": "periostotomy",
                      "dayworker": "intragyral"
                    }
                  ]
                }




Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 47]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


H.1.1.  Examples from JSON Content Rules

   Although JSON Content Rules [I-D.newton-json-content-rules] seems to
   address a more general problem than CDDL, it is still a worthwhile
   resource to explore for examples (beyond all the inspiration the
   format itself has had for CDDL).

   Figure 2 of the JCR I-D looks very similar, if slightly less noisy,
   in CDDL:

                            root = [2*2 {
                              precision: text,
                              Latitude: float,
                              Longitude: float,
                              Address: text,
                              City: text,
                              State: text,
                              Zip: text,
                              Country: text
                            }]

                     Figure 17: JCR, Figure 2, in CDDL

   Apart from the lack of a need to quote the member names, text strings
   are called "text" or "tstr" in CDDL ("string" would be ambiguous as
   CBOR also provides byte strings).

   The CDDL tool creates the below example instance for this:

    [{"precision": "pyrosphere", "Latitude": 0.5399712314350172,
      "Longitude": 0.5157523963028087, "Address": "resow",
      "City": "problemwise", "State": "martyrlike", "Zip": "preprove",
      "Country": "Pace"},
     {"precision": "unrigging", "Latitude": 0.10422704368372193,
      "Longitude": 0.6279808663725834, "Address": "picturedom",
      "City": "decipherability", "State": "autometry", "Zip": "pout",
      "Country": "wimple"}]

   Figure 4 of the JCR I-D in CDDL:












Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 48]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


                             root = { image }

                             image = (
                               Image: {
                                 size,
                                 Title: text,
                                 thumbnail,
                                 IDs: [* int]
                               }
                             )

                             size = (
                               Width: 0..1280
                               Height: 0..1024
                             )

                             thumbnail = (
                               Thumbnail: {
                                 size,
                                 Url: ~uri
                               }
                             )

   This shows how the group concept can be used to keep related elements
   (here: width, height) together, and to emulate the JCR style of
   specification.  (It also shows referencing a type by unwrapping a tag
   from the prelude, "uri" - this could be done differently.)  The more
   compact form of Figure 5 of the JCR I-D could be emulated like this:

                    root = {
                      Image: {
                        size, Title: text,
                        Thumbnail: { size, Url: ~uri },
                        IDs: [* int]
                      }
                    }

                    size = (
                      Width: 0..1280,
                      Height: 0..1024,
                    )

   The CDDL tool creates the below example instance for this:

    {"Image": {"Width": 566, "Height": 516, "Title": "leisterer",
      "Thumbnail": {"Width": 1111, "Height": 176, "Url": 32("scrog")},
      "IDs": []}}




Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 49]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


Editorial Comments

[_format] So far, the ability to restrict format choices have not been
          needed beyond the floating point formats.  Those can be
          applied to ranges using the new .and control now.  It is not
          clear we want to add more format control before we have a use
          case.

[_range] TO DO: define this precisely.  This clearly includes integers
         and floats.  Strings - as in "a".."z" - could be added if
         desired, but this would require adopting a definition of string
         ordering and possibly a successor function so "a".."z" does not
         include "bb".

[_strings] TO DO: This still needs to be fully realized in the ABNF and
           in the CDDL tool.

[_bitsendian] How useful would it be to have another variant that counts
              bits like in RFC box notation?  (Or at least per-byte?
              32-bit words don't always perfectly mesh with byte
              strings.)

[unflex] A comment has been that this is counter-intuitive.  One
         solution would be to simply disallow unparenthesized usage of
         occurrence indicators in front of type choices unless a member
         key is also present like in group2 above.

[_abnftodo] Potential improvements: the prefixed byte strings are more
            liberally specified than they actually are.  [^_abnfdontdo]:
            representation indicators are not supported. - and this will
            stay so.

[tdate] The prelude as included here does not yet have a .regexp control
        on tdate, but we probably do want to have one.

Authors' Addresses

   Henk Birkholz
   Fraunhofer SIT
   Rheinstrasse 75
   Darmstadt  64295
   Germany

   Email: henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de







Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 50]


Internet-Draft                    CDDL                         July 2017


   Christoph Vigano
   Universitaet Bremen

   Email: christoph.vigano@uni-bremen.de


   Carsten Bormann
   Universitaet Bremen TZI
   Bibliothekstr. 1
   Bremen  D-28359
   Germany

   Phone: +49-421-218-63921
   Email: cabo@tzi.org





































Birkholz, et al.         Expires January 4, 2018               [Page 51]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/