]> Universität Bremen TZI

Postfach 330440 Bremen D-28359 Germany +49-421-218-63921 cabo@tzi.org

Applications and Real-Time CBOR CBOR (STD 94, RFC 8949) defines "Deterministically Encoded CBOR" in its Section 4.2, providing some flexibility for application specific decisions. The CBOR Common Deterministic Encoding (CDE) Profile provides a more detail common base for Deterministic Encoding, facilitating it be offered as a selectable feature of generic encoders, as well as the concept of Application Profiles that are layered on top of CDE. This document defines the application profile "dCBOR" as an example of such an application profile. About This Document Status information for this document may be found at . Discussion of this document takes place on the Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions (CBOR) Working Group mailing list (), which is archived at . Subscribe at . Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at .

Introduction CBOR (STD 94, RFC 8949) defines "Deterministically Encoded CBOR" in its Section 4.2, providing some flexibility for application specific decisions. The CBOR Common Deterministic Encoding (CDE) Profile provides a more detail common base for Deterministic Encoding, facilitating it be offered as a selectable feature of generic encoders, as well as the concept of Application Profiles that are layered on top of CDE. This document defines the application profile "dCBOR" as an example of such an application profile.

Conventions and Definitions The definitions of and the Common Deterministic Encoding (CDE) Profile apply. 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 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Gordian dCBOR Gordian dCBOR provides an application profile that requires encoders to produce valid CBOR in deterministic encoding as defined in CDE). Gordian dCBOR also requires dCBOR decoders to reject CBOR data items that were not deterministically encoded. Beyond CDE, dCBOR imposes certain limitations on the CBOR basic generic data model. Some items that can be represented in the CBOR basic generic data model are entirely outlawed by this application profile. Other items are represented by what are considered equivalent data items by the dCBOR equivalence model, so a recipient application might receive data that may not be the same data in the CBOR equivalence model as the ones the generating application produced. These restrictions mainly are about numeric values, which are therefore the subject of the main subsection of this section.

Removing Simple Values Only the three simple values false (0xf4), true (0xf5), and null (0xf6) are allowed at the application level; the remaining 253 values must be rejected.

Removing Integer Values Only the integer values in range [-2⁶³, 2⁶⁴-1] can be expressed in dCBOR ("basic dCBOR integers"). Note that the range is asymmetric, with only 2⁶³ negative values, but 2⁶⁴ unsigned (non-negative) values, creating an (approximately) 64.6 bit integer. This maps to a choice between a platform 64-bit two's complement signed integer (often called int64) and a 64-bit unsigned integer (uint64). (Specific applications will, of course, further restrict ranges of integers that are considered valid for the application, based on their position and semantics in the CBOR data item.)

Numeric Reduction of Floating-Point Values dCBOR implementations that do support floating point numbers MUST perform the following two reductions of numeric values when constructing CBOR data items:

1. When representing integral floating point values (floating point values with a zero fractional part), check whether the mathematically identical value can be represented as a dCBOR integer value, i.e., is in the range [-2⁶³, 2⁶⁴-1] given above. If that is the case, convert the integral floating point to that mathematically identical integer value before encoding it. (Deterministic Encoding will then ensure the shortest length encoding is used.) This means that if a floating point value has a non-zero fractional part, or an exponent that takes it out of the given range of basic dCBOR integers, the original floating point value is used for encoding. (Specifically, conversion to a bignum is never considered.) This also means that the three representations of a zero number in CBOR (0, 0.0, -0.0 in diagnostic notation) are all reduced to the basic integer 0 (with preferred encoding 0x00). Note that this reduction can turn valid maps into invalid ones, as it can create duplicate keys, e.g., for: This means that, at the application level, the application MUST prevent the creation of maps that would turn invalid in dCBOR processing.
2. In addition, before encoding, represent all NaN values by using the quiet NaN value having the half-width CBOR representation 0xf97e00.

dCBOR-based applications MUST accept these "reduced" numbers in place of the original value, e.g., a dCBOR-based application that expects a floating point value needs to accept a basic dCBOR integer in its place (and, if needed, convert it to a floating point value for its own further processing). dCBOR-based applications MUST NOT accept numbers that have not been reduced as specified in this section, except maybe by making the unreduced numbers available for their diagnostic value when there has been an explicit request to do so. This is similar to a checking flag mentioned in Section 5.1 (API Considerations) of being set by default.

Extensibility does not discuss extensibility. A meaningful way to handle extensibility in this application profile would be to lift value range restrictions, keeping the profile-specific equivalence rules shown here intact and possibly adding equivalences as needed for newly allowed values. This subsection presents two speculative extensions of dCBOR, called dCBOR-wide1 and dCBOR-wide2, to point out different objectives that can lead the development of an extension.

dCBOR-wide1 This speculative extension of dCBOR attempts to meet two objectives:

1. All instances that meet dCBOR are also instances of dCBOR-wide1; due to the nature of deterministic serialization this also means that dCBOR-wide1 instances that only use application data model values that are allowed by dCBOR are also dCBOR instances.
2. The range of integers that can be provided by an application and can be interchanged as exact numbers is expanded to [-2¹²⁷, 2¹²⁸-1], now also covering the types i128 and u128 in Rust .

This extension is achieved by simply removing the integers in the extended range from the exclusion range of dCBOR. The numeric reduction rule is not changed, so it still applies only to integral-valued floating-point numbers in the range [-2⁶³, 2⁶⁴-1]. Examples for the application-to-CDE mapping of dCBOR-wide1 are shown in . In the dCBOR column, items that are not excluded in dCBOR are marked ✓, items that are excluded in dCBOR and therefore are new in dCBOR-wide1 are marked 👎. Speculative "dCBOR-wide1" application profile

Application data Numeric reduction (if any) Encoding via CDE	dCBOR?
0 — 00	✓
0.0 0 00	✓
-0.0 0 00	✓
4.0 4 04	✓
-4.0 -4 23	✓
1.0e+19 10000000000000000000 1B8AC7230489E80000	✓
-1.0e+19 — FBC3E158E460913D00	✓
10000000000000000000 — 1B8AC7230489E80000	✓
-10000000000000000000 — 3B8AC7230489E7FFFF	👎
1.0e+38 — FB47D2CED32A16A1B1	✓
-1.0e+38 — FBC7D2CED32A16A1B1	✓
100000000000000000000000000000000000000 — C2504B3B4CA85A86C47A098A224000000000	👎
-100000000000000000000000000000000000000 — C3504B3B4CA85A86C47A098A223FFFFFFFFF	👎

This speculative extended profile does not meet a potential objective number 3 that unextended dCBOR does meet:

1. All integral-valued floating point numbers coming from an application that fit into an integer representation allowed by the application profile are represented as such.

Objective 1 prevents numeric reduction from being applied to values that are not excluded in dCBOR but do to receive numeric reduction there.

dCBOR-wide2 The speculative dCBOR-wide2 extension of dCBOR attempts to meet objectives 2 and 3 mentioned in . It cannot meet objective 1: items in marked with a 💣 character are allows in dCBOR but have different serializations. Speculative "dCBOR-wide2" application profile

Application data Numeric reduction (if any) Encoding via CDE	dCBOR?
0 — 00	✓
0.0 0 00	✓
-0.0 0 00	✓
4.0 4 04	✓
-4.0 -4 23	✓
1.0e+19 10000000000000000000 1B8AC7230489E80000	✓
-1.0e+19 -10000000000000000000 3B8AC7230489E7FFFF	✓ 💣
10000000000000000000 — 1B8AC7230489E80000	✓
-10000000000000000000 — 3B8AC7230489E7FFFF	👎
1.0e+38 99999999999999997748809823456034029568 C2504B3B4CA85A86C4000000000000000000	✓ 💣
-1.0e+38 -99999999999999997748809823456034029568 C3504B3B4CA85A86C3FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF	✓ 💣
100000000000000000000000000000000000000 — C2504B3B4CA85A86C47A098A224000000000	👎
-100000000000000000000000000000000000000 — C3504B3B4CA85A86C47A098A223FFFFFFFFF	👎

This extension is achieved by removing the integers in the extended range from the exclusion range of dCBOR, and by adding the extended range to the target range of numeric reduction.

CDDL support Similar to the CDDL support in , this specification adds two CDDL control operators that can be used to specify that the data items should be encoded in CBOR Common Deterministic Encoding (CDE), with the dCBOR application profile applied as well. The control operators .dcbor and .dcborseq are exactly like .cde and .cdeseq except that they also require the encoded data item(s) to conform to the dCBOR application profile. For example, the normative comment in : ...can now be formalized as:

Implementation Status (Boilerplate as per :) This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in . The description of implementations in this section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may exist. According to , "this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as they see fit".

Gordian dCBOR Application Profile

TypeScript

• Implementation Location:
• Primary Maintainer:
• Languages: TypeScript (transpiles to JavaScript)
• Coverage:
• Testing:
• Licensing:

Swift

• Implementation Location:
• Primary Maintainer:
• Languages: Swift
• Coverage:
• Testing:
• Licensing: BSD-2-Clause-Patent

Rust

• Implementation Location:
• Primary Maintainer:
• Languages: Rust
• Coverage:
• Testing:
• Licensing: Custom

Ruby

• Implementation Location:
• Primary Maintainer: Carsten Bormann
• Languages: Ruby
• Coverage: Complete specification; complemented by CBOR encoder/decoder and command line interface from and deterministic encoding from . Checking of dCBOR exclusions not yet implemented.
• Testing: Also available at https://cbor.me
• Licensing: Apache-2.0

Security Considerations TODO Security

IANA Considerations RFC Editor: please replace RFCXXXX with the RFC number of this RFC and remove this note. This document requests IANA to register the contents of into the registry "" of : New control operators to be registered

Name	Reference
.dcbor	[RFCXXXX]
.dcborseq	[RFCXXXX]

References Normative References The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small code size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the need for version negotiation. These design goals make it different from earlier binary serializations such as ASN.1 and MessagePack. This document obsoletes RFC 7049, providing editorial improvements, new details, and errata fixes while keeping full compatibility with the interchange format of RFC 7049. It does not create a new version of the format. This document proposes a notational convention to express Concise Binary Object Representation (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 or JSON. IANA In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. Informative References Universität Bremen TZI CBOR (STD 94, RFC 8949) defines "Deterministically Encoded CBOR" in its Section 4.2. The present document provides additional information about use cases, deployment considerations, and implementation choices for Deterministic Encoding. Universität Bremen TZI CBOR (STD 94, RFC 8949) defines "Deterministically Encoded CBOR" in its Section 4.2, providing some flexibility for application specific decisions. To facilitate Deterministic Encoding to be offered as a selectable feature of generic encoders, the present document defines a CBOR Common Deterministic Encoding (CDE) Profile that can be shared by a large set of applications with potentially diverging detailed requirements. This document also introduces the concept of Application Profiles, which are layered on top of the CBOR CDE Profile and can address more application specific requirements. To demonstrate how Application Profiles can be built on the CDE, a companion document defines the application profile "dCBOR". Blockchain Commons Blockchain Commons CBOR (RFC 8949) defines "Deterministically Encoded CBOR" in its Section 4.2. The present document provides the application profile "dCBOR" that can be used to help achieve interoperable deterministic encoding. Discussion Venues This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/WIPs-IETF-draft-deterministic- cbor. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. Blockchain Commons Blockchain Commons Gordian Envelope specifies a structured format for hierarchical binary data focused on the ability to transmit it in a privacy- focused way, offering support for privacy as described in RFC-6973 and human rights as described in RFC-8280. Envelopes are designed to facilitate "smart documents" and have a number of unique features including: easy representation of a variety of semantic structures, a built-in Merkle-like digest tree, deterministic representation using CBOR, and the ability for the holder of a document to selectively elide specific parts of a document without invalidating the digest tree structure. This document specifies the base Envelope format, which is designed to be extensible. n.d. n.d. This document describes a simple process that allows authors of Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by including an Implementation Status section. This will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature. This process is not mandatory. Authors of Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for their documents, and working groups are invited to think about applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. This document obsoletes RFC 6982, advancing it to a Best Current Practice.

Acknowledgments This document is based on the work of Wolf McNally and Christopher Allen as documented in and discussed in 2023 in the CBOR working group.

Contributors Blockchain Commons

wolf@wolfmcnally.com

Blockchain Commons

christophera@lifewithalacrity.com