Internet-Draft | CDDL models for some existing RFCs | August 2023 |
Bormann | Expires 28 February 2024 | [Page] |
A number of CBOR- and JSON-based protocols have been defined before CDDL was standardized or widely used.¶
This short draft records some CDDL definitions for such protocols, which could become part of a library of CDDL definitions available for use in CDDL2 processors. It focuses on CDDL in (almost) published IETF RFCs.¶
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 28 February 2024.¶
Copyright (c) 2023 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 extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
(Please see abstract.) Add in [STD94] [STD90] [RFC8610] [RFC9165] [I-D.bormann-cbor-cddl-more-control]¶
This section is intended to have one subsection for each CDDL data model presented for an existing RFC. As a start, it is fleshed out with three such data models.¶
Appendix H of [RFC8610] contains two CDDL definitions for [RFC7071], which are not copied here. Typically, the compact form would be used in applications using the RFC 7071 format; while the extended form might be useful to cherry-pick features of RFC 7071 into another protocol.¶
[RFC8366] defines a data model for a "Voucher Artifact", which can be represented in CDDL as:¶
voucher-artifact = { "ietf-voucher:voucher": { created-on: yang$date-and-time ? ( expires-on: yang$date-and-time ? last-renewal-date: yang$date-and-time // nonce: json-binary<bytes .size (8..32)> ) assertion: assertion serial-number: text ? idevid-issuer: json-binary<bytes> pinned-domain-cert: json-binary<bytes> ? domain-cert-revocation-checks: bool } } assertion = "verified" / "logged" / "proximity" yang$date-and-time = text .regexp cat3<"[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}T", "[0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2}([.][0-9]+)?", "(Z|[+-][0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2})"> cat3<A,B,C> = (A .cat B) .cat C json-binary<T> = text .b64c T¶
The two examples in the RFC can be validated with this little patchup script:¶
sed -e s/ue=/uQ=/ -e s/'"true"'/true/ | cddl rfc8366.cddl vp -¶
[RFC9457] defines a simple data model that is reproduced in CDDL here:¶
problem-object = { ? type: preferably-absolute-uri ? title: text ? status: 100..599 ? detail: text ? instance: preferably-absolute-uri * text .feature "problem-object-extension" => any } ; RECOMMENDED: absolute URI or at least absolute path: preferably-absolute-uri = ~uri¶
Note that Appendix B of [RFC9290] also defines a CBOR-specific data model that may be useful for tunneling [RFC7807] or [RFC9457] problem details in [RFC9290] Concise Problem Details.¶
The RFC to be published out of [YANG-SID] defines a data model for a "SID file" in YANG, to be transported as a YANG-JSON instance.¶
An equivalent CDDL data model is given here:¶
sid-file = { "ietf-sid-file:sid-file": { module-name: yang$yang-identifier ? module-revision: revision-identifier ? sid-file-version: sid-file-version-identifier ? sid-file-status: "unpublished" / "published" ? description: text ? dependency-revision: [* dependency-revision] ? assignment-range: [* assignment-range] ? item: [*item] } } rep<RE>=cat3<"(", RE, ")*"> opt<RE>=cat3<"(", RE, ")?"> cat3<A,B,C> = (A .cat B) .cat C id-re = "[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9\\-_.]*" yang$yang-identifier = text .regexp id-re revision-identifier = text .regexp "[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}" sid-file-version-identifier = uint .size 4 sid = text .decimal (0..0x7fffffffffffffff); uint63 as text string plus-id<Prefix> = Prefix .cat id-re schema-node-re = cat3<plus-id<"/">, plus-id<":">, ; qualified rep<plus-id<"/"> .cat ; optionally opt<plus-id<":">> > > ; qualified schema-node-path = text .regexp schema-node-re dependency-revision = { module-name: yang$yang-identifier module-revision: revision-identifier } assignment-range = { entry-point: sid size: sid } item = { ? status: "stable" / "unstable" / "obsolete" ( namespace: "module" / "identity" / "feature" identifier: yang$yang-identifier // namespace: "data" identifier: schema-node-path ) sid: sid }¶
This document makes no requests of IANA.¶
The security considerations of [RFC8610], [RFC9165], [I-D.bormann-cbor-cddl-more-control], [STD94] and [STD90] apply. This collection of CDDL models is not thought to create new security considerations. Errors in the models could -- if we knew of them, we'd fix those errors instead of explaining their security consequences in this section.¶