Packed CBOR

Packed CBOR Universität Bremen TZI

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

TUD Dresden University of Technology

Helmholtzstr. 10 Dresden D-01069 Germany mikolai.guetschow@tu-dresden.de

Internet-Draft The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 8949 == STD 94) 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. CBOR does not provide any forms of data compression. CBOR data items, in particular when generated from legacy data models, often allow considerable gains in compactness when applying data compression. While traditional data compression techniques such as DEFLATE (RFC 1951) can work well for CBOR encoded data items, their disadvantage is that the recipient needs to decompress the compressed form to make use of the data. This specification describes Packed CBOR, a set of CBOR tags and simple values that enable a simple transformation of an original CBOR data item into a Packed CBOR data item that is almost as easy to consume as the original CBOR data item. A separate decompression step is therefore often not required at the recipient. The present version (-14) adds additional stand-in items to the previously updated implementation draft -13, with minor editorial improvements. About This Document Status information for this document may be found at . Discussion of this document takes place on the CBOR Working Group mailing list (), which is archived at . Subscribe at . Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at .

Introduction 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. CBOR does not provide any forms of data compression. CBOR data items, in particular when generated from legacy data models, often allow considerable gains in compactness when applying data compression. While traditional data compression techniques such as DEFLATE can work well for CBOR encoded data items, their disadvantage is that the recipient needs to decompress the compressed form to make use of the data. This specification describes Packed CBOR, a set of CBOR tags and simple values that enable a simple transformation of an original CBOR data item into a Packed CBOR data item that is almost as easy to consume as the original CBOR data item. A separate decompression step is therefore often not required at the recipient. This document defines the Packed CBOR format by specifying the transformation from a Packed CBOR data item to the original CBOR data item; it does not define an algorithm for a packer. Different packers can differ in the amount of effort they invest in arriving at a minimal packed form; often, they simply employ the sharing that is natural for a specific application. Packed CBOR can make use of two kinds of optimization:

item sharing: substructures (data items) that occur repeatedly in the original CBOR data item can be collapsed to a simple reference to a common representation of that data item. The processing required during consumption is limited to following that reference.
argument sharing: application of a function with two arguments, one of which is shared. Data items (strings, containers) that share a prefix or suffix, or more generally data items that can be constructed from a function taking a shared argument and a rump data item, can be replaced by a reference to the shared argument plus a rump data item. For strings and the default "concatenation" function, the processing required during consumption is similar to following the argument reference plus that for an indefinite-length string.

A specific application protocol that employs Packed CBOR might allow both kinds of optimization or limit the representation to item sharing only. Packed CBOR is defined in two parts: Referencing packing tables () and setting up packing tables ().

Terminology and Conventions 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 () () when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

Original data item:: A CBOR data item that is intended to be expressed by a packed data item; the result of all reconstructions.
Packed data item:: A CBOR data item that involves packed references (packed CBOR).
Packed reference:: A shared item reference or an argument reference.
Shared item reference:: A reference to a shared item as defined in .
Argument reference:: A reference that combines a shared argument with a rump item as defined in .
Rump:: The data item contained in an argument reference that is combined with the argument to yield the reconstruction.
Straight reference:: An argument reference that uses the argument as the left-hand side and the rump as the right-hand side.
Inverted reference:: An argument reference that uses the rump as the left-hand side and the argument as the right-hand side.
Function tag:: A tag used in an argument reference for the argument (straight references) or the rump (inverted references), causing the application of a function indicated by the function tag in order to reconstruct the data item.
Stand-in item:: A data item (a tag or a simple value) defined by an application protocol to stand in for a more complex data item. Stand-in items are fundamentally independent of Packed CBOR but can be employed by the application protocol as part of a Packed CBOR argument reference.
Packing tables:: The pair of a shared item table and an argument table.
Active set (of packing tables):: The packing tables in effect at the data item under consideration.
Reconstruction:: The result of applying a packed reference in the context of given packing tables; we speak of the reconstruction of a packed reference as that result.

The definitions of apply. Specifically: The term "byte" is used in its now customary sense as a synonym for "octet"; "byte strings" are CBOR data items carrying a sequence of zero or more (binary) bytes, while "text strings" are CBOR data items carrying a sequence of zero or more Unicode code points (more precisely: Unicode scalar values), encoded in UTF-8 . Where arithmetic is explained, this document uses the notation familiar from the programming language C, except that ".." denotes a range that includes both ends given, in the HTML and PDF versions, subtraction and negation are rendered as a hyphen ("-", as are various dashes), and superscript notation denotes exponentiation. For example, 2 to the power of 64 is notated: 2⁶⁴. In the plain-text version of this specification, superscript notation is not available and therefore is rendered by a surrogate notation. That notation is not optimized for this RFC; it is unfortunately ambiguous with C's exclusive-or and requires circumspection from the reader of the plain-text version. Examples of CBOR data items are shown in CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation (Section of RFC 8949 in conjunction with ➔ possibly update to ).

Packed CBOR This section describes the packing tables, their structure, and how they are referenced.

Packing Tables At any point within a data item making use of Packed CBOR, there is an active set of packing tables that applies. There are two packing tables in an active set:

Shared item table
Argument table

Without any table setup, these two tables are empty arrays. Table setup can cause these arrays to be non-empty, where the elements are (potentially themselves packed) data items. Each of the tables is indexed by an unsigned integer (starting from 0). Such an index may be derived from information in tags and their content as well as from CBOR simple values. Table setup mechanisms (see ) may include all information needed for table setup within the packed CBOR data item, or they may refer to external information. This information may be immutable, or it may be intended to potentially grow over time. This raises the question of how a reference to a new item should be handled when the unpacker uses an older version of the external information. If, during unpacking, an index is used that references an item that is unpopulated in (e.g., outside the size of) the table in use, this MAY be treated as an error by the unpacker and abort the unpacking. Alternatively, the unpacker MAY provide the special value 1112(undefined) (the simple value >undefined< as per Section of RFC 8949 , enclosed in the tag 1112) to the application and leave the error handling to the application. An unpacker SHOULD document which of these two alternatives has been chosen. CBOR based protocols that include the use of packed CBOR MAY require that unpacking errors are tolerated in some positions.

Referencing Shared Items Shared items are stored in the shared item table of the active set. The shared data items are referenced by using the reference data items in . When reconstructing the original data item, such a reference is replaced by the referenced data item, which is then recursively unpacked. Referencing Shared Values

reference	table index
Simple value 0..15	0..15
Tag 6(unsigned integer N)	16 + 2×N
Tag 6(negative integer N)	16 − 2×N − 1

As examples, the first 22 elements of the shared item table are referenced by simple(0), simple(1), ... simple(15), 6(0), 6(-1), 6(1), 6(-2), 6(2), 6(-3). (The alternation between unsigned and negative integers for even/odd table index values — "zigzag encoding" — makes systematic use of shorter integer encodings first.) Taking into account the encoding of these referring data items, there are 16 one-byte references, 48 two-byte references, 512 three-byte references, 131072 four-byte references, etc. As CBOR integers can grow to very large (or very negative) values, there is no practical limit to how many shared items might be used in a Packed CBOR item. Note that the semantics of Tag 6 depend on its tag content: An integer turns the tag into a shared item reference, whereas a string, container (map or array), tag, or simple value turns it into a straight (prefix) reference (see ). Note also that the tag content of Tag 6 may itself be packed, so it may need to be unpacked to make this determination.

Referencing Argument Items The argument table serves as a common table that can be used for argument references, i.e., for concatenation as well as references involving a function tag. When referencing an argument, a distinction is made between straight and inverted references; if no function tag is involved, a straight reference combines a prefix out of the argument table with the rump data item, and an inverted reference combines a rump data item with a suffix out of the argument table. Straight Referencing (e.g., Prefix) Arguments

straight reference	table index
Tag 6(rump)	0
Tag 224..255(rump)	0..31
Tag 28704..32767(rump)	32..4095
Tag 1879052288..2147483647(rump)	4096..268435455

Inverted Referencing (e.g., Suffix) Arguments

inverted reference	table index
Tag 216..223(rump)	0..7
Tag 27647..28671(rump)	8..1023
Tag 1811940352..1879048191(rump)	1024..67108863

Argument data items are referenced by using the reference data items in and . The tag number of the reference is used to derive a table index (an unsigned integer) leading to the "argument"; the tag content of the reference is the "rump item". When reconstructing the original data item, such a reference is replaced by a data item constructed from the argument data item found in the table (argument, which might need to be recursively unpacked first) and the rump data item (rump, again possibly needing to be recursively unpacked). Separate from the tag used as a reference, a tag ("function tag") may be involved to supply a function to be used in resolving the reference. It is crucial not to confuse reference tag and, if present, function tag. A straight reference uses the argument as the provisional left-hand side and the rump data item as the right-hand side. An inverted reference uses the rump data item as the provisional left-hand side and the argument as the right-hand side. In both cases, the provisional left-hand side is examined. If it is a tag ("function tag"), it is "unwrapped": The function tag's tag number is used to indicate the function to be applied, and the tag content is kept as the unwrapped left-hand side. If the provisional left-hand side is not a tag, it is kept as the unwrapped left-hand side, and the function to be applied is concatenation, as defined below. The right-hand side is examined whether it is a stand-in item (), in which case item the stand-in item stands for is taken as the unwrapped right-hand-side; if the right-hand side is not a stand-in item, it is taken as is as the unwrapped right-hand side. If a function tag was given, the reference is replaced by the result of applying the indicated unpacking function with the left-hand side as its first argument and the right-hand side as its second. The unpacking function is defined by the definition of the tag number supplied. If that definition does not define an unpacking function, the result of the unpacking is not valid. If no function tag was given, the reference is replaced by the left-hand side "concatenated" with the right-hand side, where concatenation is defined as in . As a contrived (but short) example, if the argument table is ["foobar", h'666f6f62', "fo"], each of the following straight (prefix) references will unpack to "foobart": 6("t"), 225("art"), 226("obart") (the byte string h'666f6f62' == 'foob' is concatenated into a text string, and the last example is not an optimization). Note that table index 0 of the argument table can be referenced both with tag 6 and tag 224, however tag 6 with an integer content is used for shared item references (see ), so to combine index 0 with an integer rump, tag 224 needs to be used. The preferred encoding uses tag 6 if that is not necessary. Taking into account the encoding and ignoring the less optimal tag 224, there is one single-byte straight (prefix) reference, 31 (2⁵-2⁰) two-byte references, 4064 (2¹²-2⁵) three-byte references, and 26843160 (2²⁸-2¹²) five-byte references for straight references. 268435455 (2²⁸) is an artificial limit, but should be high enough that there, again, is no practical limit to how many prefix items might be used in a Packed CBOR item. The numbers for inverted (suffix) references are one quarter of those, except that there is no single-byte reference and 8 two-byte references.

Concatenation The concatenation function is defined as follows:

If both left-hand side and right-hand side are arrays, the result of the concatenation is an array with all elements of the left-hand-side array followed by the elements of the right-hand side array.
If both left-hand side and right-hand side are maps, the result of the concatenation is a map that is initialized with a copy of the left-hand-side map, and then filled in with the members of the right-hand side map, replacing any existing members that have the same key. In order to be able to remove a map entry from the left-hand-side map, as a special case, any members to be replaced with a value of undefined (0xf7) from the right-hand-side map are instead removed, and right-hand-side members with the value undefined are never filled in into the concatenated map.

If both left-hand side and right-hand side are one of the string types (not necessarily the same), the bytes of the left-hand side are concatenated with the bytes of the right-hand side. Byte strings concatenated with text strings need to contain valid UTF-8 data. The result of the concatenation gets the type of the unwrapped rump data item; this way a single argument table entry can be used to build both byte and text strings, depending on what type of rump is being used.

If one side is one of the string types, and the other side is an array, the result of the concatenation is equivalent to the application of the "join" function () to the string as the left-hand side and the array as the right-hand side. The original right-hand side of the concatenation determines the string type of the result.
Other type combinations of left-hand side and right-hand side are not valid.

Discussion This specification uses up a large number of Simple Values and Tags, in particular one of the rare one-byte tags and two thirds of the one-byte simple values. Since the objective is compression, this is warranted only based on a consensus that this specific format could be useful for a wide area of applications, while maintaining reasonable simplicity in particular at the side of the consumer. A maliciously crafted Packed CBOR data item might contain a reference loop. A consumer/decompressor MUST protect against that.

Different strategies for decoding/consuming Packed CBOR are available.
For example:

the decoder can decode and unpack the packed item, presenting an unpacked data item to the application. In this case, the onus of dealing with loops is on the decoder. (This strategy generally has the highest memory consumption, but also the simplest interface to the application.) Besides avoiding getting stuck in a reference loop, the decoder will need to control its resource allocation, as data items can "blow up" during unpacking.
the decoder can be oblivious of Packed CBOR. In this case, the onus of dealing with loops is on the application, as is the entire onus of dealing with Packed CBOR.
hybrid models are possible, for instance: The decoder builds a data item tree directly from the Packed CBOR as if it were oblivious, but also provides accessors that hide (resolve) the packing. In this specific case, the onus of dealing with loops is on the accessors.

In general, loop detection can be handled in a similar way in which loops of symbolic links are handled in a file system: A system-wide limit (often set to a value permitting some 20 to 40 indirections for symbolic links) is applied to any reference chase.

Table Setup The packing references described in assume that packing tables have been set up. By default, both tables are empty (zero-length arrays). Table setup can happen in one of two ways:

By the application environment, e.g., a media type. These can define tables that amount to a static dictionary that can be used in a CBOR data item for this application environment. Note that, without this information, a data item that uses such a static dictionary can be decoded at the CBOR level, but not fully unpacked. The table setup mechanisms provided by this document are defined in such a way that an unpacker can at least recognize if this is the case.
By one or more table-building tags enclosing the packed content. Each tag is usually defined to build an augmented table by adding to the packing tables that already apply to the tag, and to apply the resulting augmented table when unpacking the tag content. Usually, the semantics of the tag will be to prepend items to one or more of the tables. (The specific behavior of any such tag, in the presence of a table applying to it, needs to be carefully specified.) Note that it may be useful to leave a particular efficiency tier alone and only prepend to a higher tier; e.g., a tag could insert shared items at table index 16 and shift anything that was already there further along in the array while leaving index 0 to 15 alone. Explicit additions by tag can combine with application-environment supplied tables that apply to the entire CBOR data item. Packed item references in the newly constructed (low-numbered) parts of the table are usually interpreted in the number space of that table (which includes the, now higher-numbered, inherited parts), while references in any existing, inherited (higher-numbered) part continue to use the (more limited) number space of the inherited table.

Where external information is used in a table setup mechanism that is not immutable, care needs to be taken so that, over time, references to existing table entries stay valid (i.e., the information is only extended), and that a maximum size of this information is given. This allows an unpacker to recognize references to items that are not yet defined in the version of the external reference that it uses, providing backward and possibly limited (degraded) forward compatibility. For table setup, the present specification only defines two simple table-building tags, which operate by prepending to the (by default empty) tables.

Basic Packed CBOR Two tags are predefined by this specification for packing table setup. They are defined in CDDL as in :

Packed CBOR in CDDL (This assumes the allocation of tag numbers 113 ('q') and 1113 for these tags.) The array given as the first element of the content of tag 113 ("Basic-Packed-CBOR") is prepended to both the tables for shared items and arguments that apply to the entire tag (by default empty tables). The arrays given as the first and second element of the content of the tag 1113 ("Split-Basic-Packed-CBOR") are prepended to the tables for shared items and arguments, respectively, that apply to the entire tag (by default empty tables). As discussed in the introduction to this section, references in the supplied new arrays use the new number space (where inherited items are shifted by the new items given), while the inherited items themselves use the inherited number space (so their semantics do not change by the mere action of inheritance). The original CBOR data item can be reconstructed by recursively replacing shared and argument references encountered in the rump by their reconstructions.

Function Tags Function tags that occur in an argument or a rump supply the semantics for reconstructing a data item from their tag content and the non-dominating rump or argument, respectively. The present specification defines three function tags.

Join Function Tags Tag 106 ('j') defines the "join" unpacking function, based on the concatenation function (). The join function expects an item that can be concatenated as its left-hand side, and an array of such items as its right-hand side. Joining works by sequentially applying the concatenation function to the elements of the right-hand-side array, interspersing the left-hand side as the "joiner". An example in functional notation: join(", ", ["a", "b", "c"]) returns "a, b, c". For a right-hand side of one or more elements, the first element determines the type of the result when text strings and byte strings are mixed in the argument. For a right-hand side of one element, the joiner is not used, and that element returned. For a right-hand side of zero elements, a neutral element is generated based on the type of the joiner (empty text/byte string for a text/byte string, empty array for an array, empty map for a map). For an example, we assume this unpacked data item: A packed form of this using straight references could be: Tag 105 ('i') defines the "ijoin" unpacking function, which is exactly like that of tag 106, except that the left-hand side and right-hand side are interchanged ('i'). A packed form of the first example using inverted references and the ijoin tag could be: A packed form of an array with many URIs that reference SenML items from the same place could be: Note that for these examples, the implicit join semantics for mixed string-array concatenation as defined in actually obviate the need for an explicit join/ijoin tag; the examples do serve to demonstrate the explicit usage of the tag.

Record Function Tag Tag 114 ('r') defines the "record" function, which combines an array of keys with an array of values into a map. The record function expects an array as its left-hand side, whose items are treated as key items for the resulting map, and an array of equal or shorter length as its right-hand side, whose items are treated as value items for the resulting map. The map is constructed by grouping key and value items with equal position in the provided arrays into pairs that constitute the resulting map. The value item array MUST NOT be longer than the key item array. The value item array MAY be shorter than the key item array, in which case the one or more unmatched value items towards the end are treated as absent. Additionally, value items that are the CBOR simple value undefined (simple(23), encoding 0xf7) are also treated as absent. Key items whose matching value items are absent are not included in the resulting map. For an example, we assume this unpacked data item: A straightforward packed form of this using the record function tag could be: A slightly more concise packed form can be achieved by manipulating the key item order (recall that the order of key/value pairs in maps carries no semantics):

Additional Stand-in Items Application specifications that employ Packed CBOR may also enable the use of additional "stand-in" items (tags or simple values) beyond the reference items defined by Packed CBOR. These are data items used in place of original representation items such as strings or arrays, where the tag or simple value is defined to stand for a data item that can actually be used in the position of the stand-in item. Examples would be tags such as 21 to 23 (base64url, base64, uppercase hex: Section of RFC 8949 ) or 108 (lowercase hex: ), which stand for text string items but internally employ more compact byte string representations that may also be more natural as application data items. These additional stand-in items are fundamentally independent of Packed CBOR, but they also can be used as the right-hand-side of reference items (see ). Note that application specifications need to be explicit about which stand-in items are provided for; otherwise, inconsistent interpretations at different places in a system can lead to check/use vulnerabilities.

Tag Validity: Tag Equivalence Principle In Section of RFC 8949 , the validity of tags is defined in terms of type and value of their tag content. The CBOR Tag registry ( as defined in Section of RFC 8949 ) allows recording the "data item" for a registered tag, which is usually an abbreviated description of the top-level data type allowed for the tag content. In other words, in the registry, the validity of a tag of a given tag number is described in terms of the top-level structure of the data carried in the tag content. The description of a tag might add further constraints for the data item. But in any case, a tag definition can only specify validity based on the structure of its tag content. In Packed CBOR, a reference tag might be "standing in" for the actual tag content of an outer tag, or for a structural component of that. In this case, the formal structure of the outer tag's content before unpacking usually no longer fulfills the validity conditions of the outer tag. The underlying problem is not unique to Packed CBOR. For instance, describes tags 64..87 that "stand in" for CBOR arrays (the native form of which has major type 4). For the other tags defined in this specification, which require some array structure of the tag content, a footnote was added:

[...] The second element of the outer array in the data item is a native CBOR array (major type 4) or Typed Array (one of tag 64..87)

The top-down approach to handle the "rendezvous" between the outer and inner tags does not support extensibility: any further Typed Array tags being defined do not inherit the exception granted to tag number 64..87; they would need to formally update all existing tag definitions that can accept typed arrays or be of limited use with these existing tags. Instead, the tag validity mechanism needs to be extended by a bottom-up component: A tag definition needs to be able to declare that the tag can "stand in" for, (is, in terms of tag validity, equivalent to) some structure. E.g., tag 64..87 could have declared their equivalence to the CBOR major type 4 arrays they stand in for.

Tag Equivalence A tag definition MAY declare Tag Equivalence to some existing structure for the tag, under some conditions defined by the new tag definition. This, in effect, extends all existing tag definitions that accept the named structure to accept the newly defined tag under the conditions given for the Tag Equivalence. A number of limitations apply to Tag Equivalence, which therefore should be applied deliberately and sparingly:

Tag Equivalence is a new concept, which may not be implemented by an existing generic decoder. A generic decoder not implementing tag equivalence might raise tag validity errors where Tag Equivalence says there should be none.
A CBOR protocol MAY specify the use of Tag Equivalence, effectively limiting the protocol's full use to those generic encoders that implement it. Existing CBOR protocols that do not address Tag Equivalence implicitly have a new variant that allows Tag Equivalence (e.g., to support Packed CBOR with an existing protocol). A CBOR protocol that does address Tag Equivalence MAY be explicit about what kinds of Tag Equivalence it supports (e.g., only the reference tags employed by Packed CBOR and certain table setup tags).
There is currently no way to express Tag Equivalence in CDDL. For Packed CBOR, CDDL would typically be used to describe the unpacked CBOR represented by it; further restricting the Packed CBOR is likely to lead to interoperability problems. (Note that, by definition, there is no need to describe Tag Equivalence on the receptacle side; only for the tag that declares Tag Equivalence.)
The registry "" currently does not have a way to record any equivalence claimed for a tag. A convention would be to alert to Tag Equivalence in the "Semantics (short form)" field of the registry.Needs to be done for the tag registrations here.

Tag Equivalence of Packed CBOR Tags The reference tags in this specification declare their equivalence to the unpacked shared items or function results they represent. The table setup tags 113 and 1113 declare their equivalence to the unpacked CBOR data item represented by them.

IANA Considerations

CBOR Tags Registry In the registry "" , IANA is requested to allocate the tags defined in . Values for Tag Numbers

Tag	Data Item	Semantics	Reference
6	integer (for shared); any except integer (for straight)	Packed CBOR: shared/straight	draft-ietf-cbor-packed
105	concatenation item (text string, byte string, array, or map)	Packed CBOR: ijoin function	draft-ietf-cbor-packed
106	array of concatenation item (text string, byte string, array, or map)	Packed CBOR: join function	draft-ietf-cbor-packed
113	array (shared-and-argument-items, rump)	Packed CBOR: table setup	draft-ietf-cbor-packed
114	array	Packed CBOR: record function	draft-ietf-cbor-packed
216..223	function tag or concatenation item (text string, byte string, array, or map)	Packed CBOR: inverted	draft-ietf-cbor-packed
224..255	any	Packed CBOR: straight	draft-ietf-cbor-packed
1112	undefined (0xf7)	Packed CBOR: reference error	draft-ietf-cbor-packed
1113	array (shared-items, argument-items, rump)	Packed CBOR: table setup	draft-ietf-cbor-packed
27647..28671	function tag or concatenation item (text string, byte string, array, or map)	Packed CBOR: inverted	draft-ietf-cbor-packed
28704..32767	any	Packed CBOR: straight	draft-ietf-cbor-packed
1811940352..1879048191	function tag or concatenation item (text string, byte string, array, or map)	Packed CBOR: inverted	draft-ietf-cbor-packed
1879052288..2147483647	any	Packed CBOR: straight	draft-ietf-cbor-packed

CBOR Simple Values Registry In the registry "" , IANA is requested to allocate the simple values defined in . Simple Values

Value	Semantics	Reference
0..15	Packed CBOR: shared	draft-ietf-cbor-packed

Security Considerations The security considerations of apply. Loops in the Packed CBOR can be used as a denial of service attack unless mitigated, see . As the unpacking is deterministic, packed forms can be used as signing inputs. (Note that if external dictionaries are added to cbor-packed, this requires additional consideration.)

References Normative References Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) 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. Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags IANA Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Simple Values IANA Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and JSON Data Structures 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. Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels 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. Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words 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. CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation (EDN) Universität Bremen TZI This document formalizes and consolidates the definition of the Extended Diagnostic Notation (EDN) of the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR), addressing implementer experience. Replacing EDN's previous informal descriptions, it updates RFC 8949, obsoleting its Section 8, and RFC 8610, obsoleting its Appendix G. It also specifies and uses registry-based extension points, using one to support text representations of epoch-based dates/times and of IP addresses and prefixes. // (This cref will be removed by the RFC editor:) The present // revision (–16) addresses the first half of the WGLC comments, // except for the issues around the specific way how to best achieve // pluggable ABNF grammars for application-extensions. It is // intended for use as a reference document for the mid-WGLC CBOR WG // interim meeting on 2025-01-08. Informative References UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646 ISO/IEC 10646-1 defines a large character set called the Universal Character Set (UCS) which encompasses most of the world's writing systems. The originally proposed encodings of the UCS, however, were not compatible with many current applications and protocols, and this has led to the development of UTF-8, the object of this memo. UTF-8 has the characteristic of preserving the full US-ASCII range, providing compatibility with file systems, parsers and other software that rely on US-ASCII values but are transparent to other values. This memo obsoletes and replaces RFC 2279. Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) 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. JSON Merge Patch This specification defines the JSON merge patch format and processing rules. The merge patch format is primarily intended for use with the HTTP PATCH method as a means of describing a set of modifications to a target resource's content. Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Sequences This document describes the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Sequence format and associated media type "application/cbor-seq". A CBOR Sequence consists of any number of encoded CBOR data items, simply concatenated in sequence. Structured syntax suffixes for media types allow other media types to build on them and make it explicit that they are built on an existing media type as their foundation. This specification defines and registers "+cbor-seq" as a structured syntax suffix for CBOR Sequences. Naming Things with Hashes This document defines a set of ways to identify a thing (a digital object in this case) using the output from a hash function. It specifies a new URI scheme for this purpose, a way to map these to HTTP URLs, and binary and human-speakable formats for these names. The various formats are designed to support, but not require, a strong link to the referenced object, such that the referenced object may be authenticated to the same degree as the reference to it. The reason for this work is to standardise current uses of hash outputs in URLs and to support new information-centric applications and other uses of hash outputs in protocols. DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification version 1.3 This specification defines a lossless compressed data format that compresses data using a combination of the LZ77 algorithm and Huffman coding, with efficiency comparable to the best currently available general-purpose compression methods. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Typed Arrays The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR), as defined in RFC 7049, 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. This document makes use of this extensibility to define a number of CBOR tags for typed arrays of numeric data, as well as additional tags for multi-dimensional and homogeneous arrays. It is intended as the reference document for the IANA registration of the CBOR tags defined. Notable CBOR Tags Universität Bremen TZI The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 8949) 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. In CBOR, one point of extensibility is the definition of CBOR tags. RFC 8949's original edition, RFC 7049, defined a basic set of 16 tags as well as a registry that can be used to contribute additional tag definitions [IANA.cbor-tags]. Since RFC 7049 was published, at the time of writing some 190 definitions of tags and ranges of tags have been added to that registry. The present document provides a roadmap to a large subset of these tag definitions. Where applicable, it points to an IETF standards or standard development document that specifies the tag. Where no such document exists, the intention is to collect specification information from the sources of the registrations. After some more development, the present document is intended to be useful as a reference document for the IANA registrations of the CBOR tags the definitions of which have been collected. Arbitrary-Exponent Numbers Specification for Registration of CBOR Tags 264 and 265

Examples The (JSON-compatible) CBOR data structure depicted in , 400 bytes of binary CBOR, could be packed into the CBOR data item depicted in , 308 bytes, only employing item sharing. With support for argument sharing and the record function tag 114, the data item can be packed into 298 bytes as depicted in . Note that this particular example does not lend itself to prefix compression, so it uses the simple common-table setup form (tag 113).

Example original CBOR data item, 400 bytes

Example packed CBOR data item with item sharing only, 308 bytes

Example packed CBOR data item using item sharing and the record function tag, 298 bytes The (JSON-compatible) CBOR data structure below has been packed with shared item and (partial) prefix compression only and employs the split-table setup form (tag 1113).

Example original CBOR data item, 1210 bytes

Example packed CBOR data item, 505 bytes

Acknowledgements CBOR packing was part of the original proposal that turned into CBOR, but did not make it into , the predecessor of RFC 8949 . Various attempts to come up with a specification over the years did not proceed. In 2017, proposed investigating compact representations of W3C Thing Descriptions, which prompted the author to come up with what turned into the present design. This work was supported in part by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the project Concrete Contracts.