Network Working Group C. Bormann
Internet-Draft Universität Bremen TZI
Intended status: Informational 4 March 2021
Expires: 5 September 2021
Additional Control Operators for CDDL
draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-control-03
Abstract
The Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL), standardized in RFC
8610, provides "control operators" as its main language extension
point.
The present document defines a number of control operators that did
not make it into RFC 8610: ".plus", ".cat" and ".det" for the
construction of constants, ".abnf"/".abnfb" for including ABNF (RFC
5234/RFC 7405) in CDDL specifications, and ".feature" for indicating
the use of a non-basic feature in an instance.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 5 September 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
Bormann Expires 5 September 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CDDL control operators March 2021
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Computed Literals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Numeric Addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. String Concatenation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. String Concatenation with Dedenting . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Embedded ABNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
The Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL), standardized in RFC
8610, provides "control operators" as its main language extension
point.
The present document defines a number of control operators that did
not make it into RFC 8610:
Bormann Expires 5 September 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CDDL control operators March 2021
+==========+===========================================+
| Name | Purpose |
+==========+===========================================+
| .plus | Numeric addition |
+----------+-------------------------------------------+
| .cat | String Concatenation |
+----------+-------------------------------------------+
| .det | String Concatenation, dedenting rhs |
+----------+-------------------------------------------+
| .abnf | ABNF in CDDL (text strings) |
+----------+-------------------------------------------+
| .abnfb | ABNF in CDDL (byte strings) |
+----------+-------------------------------------------+
| .feature | Detecting feature use in extension points |
+----------+-------------------------------------------+
Table 1: New control operators in this document
1.1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
This specification uses terminology from [RFC8610]. In particular,
with respect to control operators, "target" refers to the left hand
side operand, and "controller" to the right hand side operand.
2. Computed Literals
CDDL as defined in [RFC8610] does not have any mechanisms to compute
literals. As an 80 % solution, this specification adds three control
operators: ".plus" for numeric addition, ".cat" for string
concatenation, and ".det" for string concatenation with dedenting of
the right hand side (controller).
2.1. Numeric Addition
In many cases in a specification, numbers are needed relative to a
base number. The ".plus" control identifies a number that is
constructed by adding the numeric values of the target and of the
controller.
Bormann Expires 5 September 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CDDL control operators March 2021
Target and controller MUST be numeric. If the target is a floating
point number and the controller an integer number, or vice versa, the
sum is converted into the type of the target; converting from a
floating point number to an integer selects its floor (the largest
integer less than or equal to the floating point number).
interval = (
BASE => int ; lower bound
(BASE .plus 1) => int ; upper bound
? (BASE .plus 2) => int ; tolerance
)
X = 0
Y = 3
rect = {
interval
interval
}
Figure 1: Example: addition to a base value
The example in Figure 1 contains the generic definition of a group
"interval" that gives a lower and an upper bound and optionally a
tolerance. "rect" combines two of these groups into a map, one group
for the X dimension and one for Y dimension.
2.2. String Concatenation
It is often useful to be able to compose string literals out of
component literals defined in different places in the specification.
The ".cat" control identifies a string that is built from a
concatenation of the target and the controller. As targets and
controllers are types, the resulting type is formally the cross-
product of the two types, although not all tools may be able to work
with non-unique targets or controllers.
Target and controller MUST be strings. The result of the operation
has the type of the target. The concatenation is performed on the
bytes in both strings. If the target is a text string, the result of
that concatenation MUST be valid UTF-8.
a = "foo" .cat '
bar
baz
'
; on a system where the newline is \n, is the same string as:
b = "foo\n bar\n baz\n"
Bormann Expires 5 September 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CDDL control operators March 2021
Figure 2: Example: concatenation of text and byte string
The example in Figure 2 builds a text string named "a" out of
concatenating the target text string ""foo"" and the controller byte
string entered in a text form byte string literal. (This particular
idiom is useful when the text string contains newlines, which, as
shown in the example for "b", may be harder to read when entered in
the format that the pure CDDL text string notation inherits from
JSON.)
2.3. String Concatenation with Dedenting
Multi-line string literals for various applications, including
embedded ABNF (Section 3), need to be set flush left, at least
partially. Often, having some indentation in the source code for the
literal can promote readability, as in Figure 3.
oid = bytes .abnfb ("oid" .det cbor-tags-oid)
roid = bytes .abnfb ("roid" .det cbor-tags-oid)
cbor-tags-oid = '
oid = 1*arc
roid = *arc
arc = [nlsb] %x00-7f
nlsb = %x81-ff *%x80-ff
'
Figure 3: Example: dedenting concatenation
The control operator ".det" works like ".cat", except that the right
hand side (controller) is _dedented_ first. For the purposes of this
specification, we define dedenting as:
1. determining the smallest amount of left-most white space (number
of leading space characters) in all the non-blank lines, and
2. removing exactly that number of leading space characters from
each line. For blank (white space only or empty) lines, there
may be less (or no) leading space characters than this amount, in
which case all leading space is removed.
(The name ".det" is a shortcut for "dedenting cat". The maybe more
obvious name ".dedcat" has not been chosen as it is longer and may
invoke unpleasant images.)
If left-hand-side (target) dedenting is needed as well, this can be
achieved with the slightly longer construct "("" .det lhs) .det rhs".
Bormann Expires 5 September 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CDDL control operators March 2021
3. Embedded ABNF
Many IETF protocols define allowable values for their text strings in
ABNF [RFC5234] [RFC7405]. It is often desirable to define a text
string type in CDDL by employing existing ABNF embedded into the CDDL
specification. Without specific ABNF support in CDDL, that ABNF
would usually need to be translated into a regular expression (if
that is even possible).
ABNF is added to CDDL in the same way that regular expressions were
added: by defining a ".abnf" control operator. The target is usually
"text" or some restriction on it, the controller is the text of an
ABNF specification.
There are several small issues, with solutions given here:
* ABNF can be used to define byte sequences as well as UTF-8 text
strings interpreted as Unicode scalar sequences. This means this
specification defines two control operators: ".abnfb" for ABNF
denoting byte sequences and ".abnf" for denoting sequences of
Unicode scalar values (codepoint) represented as UTF-8 text
strings. Both control operators can be applied to targets of
either string type; the ABNF is applied to sequence of bytes in
the string interpreting that as a sequence of bytes (".abnfb") or
as a sequence of code points represented as an UTF-8 text string
(".abnf"). The controller string MUST be a text string.
* ABNF defines a list of rules, not a single expression (called
"elements" in [RFC5234]). This is resolved by requiring the
controller string to be one valid "element", followed by zero or
more valid "rule" separated from the element by a newline; so the
controller string can be built by preceding a piece of valid ABNF
by an "element" that selects from that ABNF and a newline.
* For the same reason, ABNF requires newlines; specifying newlines
in CDDL text strings is tedious (and leads to essentially
unreadable ABNF). The workaround employs the ".cat" operator
introduced in Section 2.2 and the syntax for text in byte strings.
As is customary for ABNF, the syntax of ABNF itself (NOT the
syntax expressed in ABNF!) is relaxed to allow a single linefeed
as a newline:
CRLF = %x0A / %x0D.0A
Bormann Expires 5 September 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CDDL control operators March 2021
* One set of rules provided in an ABNF specification is often used
in multiple positions, in particular staples such as DIGIT and
ALPHA. (Note that all rules referenced need to be defined in each
ABNF operator controller string -- there is no implicit import of
[RFC5234] Core ABNF or other rules.) The composition this calls
for can be provided by the ".cat" operator.
These points are combined into an example in Figure 4, which uses
ABNF from [RFC3339] to specify one of the CBOR tags defined in
[RFC8943].
; for draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag
Tag1004 = #6.1004(text .abnf full-date)
; for RFC 7049
Tag0 = #6.0(text .abnf date-time)
full-date = "full-date" .det rfc3339
date-time = "date-time" .det rfc3339
; Note the trick of idiomatically starting with a newline, separating
; off the element in the concatenations above from the rule-list
rfc3339 = '
date-fullyear = 4DIGIT
date-month = 2DIGIT ; 01-12
date-mday = 2DIGIT ; 01-28, 01-29, 01-30, 01-31 based on
; month/year
time-hour = 2DIGIT ; 00-23
time-minute = 2DIGIT ; 00-59
time-second = 2DIGIT ; 00-58, 00-59, 00-60 based on leap sec
; rules
time-secfrac = "." 1*DIGIT
time-numoffset = ("+" / "-") time-hour ":" time-minute
time-offset = "Z" / time-numoffset
partial-time = time-hour ":" time-minute ":" time-second
[time-secfrac]
full-date = date-fullyear "-" date-month "-" date-mday
full-time = partial-time time-offset
date-time = full-date "T" full-time
' .cat rfc5234-core
rfc5234-core = '
DIGIT = %x30-39 ; 0-9
; abbreviated here
'
Figure 4: Example: employing RFC 3339 ABNF for defining CBOR Tags
Bormann Expires 5 September 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CDDL control operators March 2021
4. Features
Traditionally, the kind of validation enabled by languages such as
CDDL provided a Boolean result: valid, or invalid.
In rapidly evolving environments, this is too simplistic. The data
models described by a CDDL specification may continually be enhanced
by additional features, and it would be useful even for a
specification that does not yet describe a specific future feature to
identify the extension point the feature can use, accepting such
extensions while marking them as such.
The ".feature" control annotates the target as making use of the
feature named by the controller. The latter will usually be a
string. A tool that validates an instance against that specification
may mark the instance as using a feature that is annotated by the
specification.
More specifically, the tool's diagnostic output might contain the
controller (right hand side) as a feature name, and the target (left
hand side) as a feature detail. However, in some cases, the target
has too much detail, and the specification might want to hint the
tool that more limited detail is appropriate. In this case, the
controller should be an array, with the first element being the
feature name (that would otherwise be the entire controller), and the
second element being the detail (usually another string).
foo = {
kind: bar / baz .feature (["foo-extensions", "bazify"])
}
bar = ...
baz = ... ; complex stuff that doesn't all need to be in the detail
Figure 5 shows what could be the definition of a person, with
potential extensions beyond "name" and "organization" being marked
"further-person-extension". Extensions that are known at the time
this definition is written can be collected into "$$person-
extensions". However, future extensions would be deemed invalid
unless the wildcard at the end of the map is added. These extensions
could then be specifically examined by a user or a tool that makes
use of the validation result; the label (map key) actually used makes
a fine feature detail for the tool's diagnostic output.
Bormann Expires 5 September 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CDDL control operators March 2021
Leaving out the entire extension point would mean that instances that
make use of an extension would be marked as whole-sale invalid,
making the entire validation approach much less useful. Leaving the
extension point in, but not marking its use as special, would render
mistakes such as using the label "organisation" instead of
"organization" invisible.
person = {
? name: text
? organization: text
$$person-extensions
* (text .feature "further-person-extension") => any
}
$$person-extensions //= (? bloodgroup: text)
Figure 5: Map extensibility with .feature
Figure 6 shows another example where ".feature" provides for type
extensibility.
allowed-types = number / text / bool / null
/ [* number] / [* text] / [* bool]
/ (any .feature "allowed-type-extension")
Figure 6: Type extensibility with .feature
A CDDL tool may simply report the set of features being used; the
control then only provides information to the process requesting the
validation. One could also imagine a tool that takes arguments
allowing the tool to accept certain features and reject others
(enable/disable). The latter approach could for instance be used for
a JSON/CBOR switch:
SenML-Record = {
; ...
? v => number
; ...
}
v = JC<"v", 2>
JC = J .feature "json" / C .feature "cbor"
It remains to be seen if the enable/disable approach can lead to new
idioms of using CDDL. The language currently has no way to enforce
mutually exclusive use of features, as would be needed in this
example.
Bormann Expires 5 September 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CDDL control operators March 2021
5. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to register the contents of Table 2 into
the CDDL Control Operators registry [IANA.cddl]:
+==========+===========+
| Name | Reference |
+==========+===========+
| .plus | [RFCthis] |
+----------+-----------+
| .cat | [RFCthis] |
+----------+-----------+
| .det | [RFCthis] |
+----------+-----------+
| .abnf | [RFCthis] |
+----------+-----------+
| .abnfb | [RFCthis] |
+----------+-----------+
| .feature | [RFCthis] |
+----------+-----------+
Table 2
6. Implementation Status
An early implementation of the control operator ".feature" has been
available in the CDDL tool described in Appendix F of [RFC8610] since
version 0.8.11. The validator warns about each feature being used
and provides the set of target values used with the feature. The
other control operators defined in this specification are also
implemented as of version 0.8.21.
Andrew Weiss' [CDDL-RS] has an ongoing implementation of this draft
which is feature-complete except for the ABNF and dedenting support
(https://github.com/anweiss/cddl/pull/79
(https://github.com/anweiss/cddl/pull/79)).
7. Security considerations
The security considerations of [RFC8610] apply.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[IANA.cddl]
IANA, "Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL)",
.
Bormann Expires 5 September 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CDDL control operators March 2021
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
.
[RFC7405] Kyzivat, P., "Case-Sensitive String Support in ABNF",
RFC 7405, DOI 10.17487/RFC7405, December 2014,
.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, .
[RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2019, .
8.2. Informative References
[CDDL-RS] Weiss, A., "cddl-rs", n.d.,
.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
.
[RFC8943] Jones, M., Nadalin, A., and J. Richter, "Concise Binary
Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Date", RFC 8943,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8943, November 2020,
.
Acknowledgements
Jim Schaad suggested several improvements. The ".feature" feature
was developed out of a discussion with Henk Birkholz. Paul Kyzivat
helped isolate the need for ".det".
Author's Address
Bormann Expires 5 September 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CDDL control operators March 2021
Carsten Bormann
Universität Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
D-28359 Bremen
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921
Email: cabo@tzi.org
Bormann Expires 5 September 2021 [Page 12]