RFC 9165: Additional Control Operators for the Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL)

Status of This Memo

This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9165.¶

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 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.¶

1. Introduction

The Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL), standardized in [RFC8610], provides "control operators" as its main language extension point (Section 3.8 of [RFC8610]).¶

The present document defines a number of control operators that were not yet ready at the time [RFC8610] was completed:¶

2. Computed Literals

CDDL as defined in [RFC8610] does not have any mechanisms to compute literals. To cover a large part of the use cases, this specification adds three control operators: .plus for numeric addition, .cat for string concatenation, and .det for string concatenation with dedenting of both sides (target and controller).¶

For these operators, as with all control operators, targets and controllers are types. The resulting type is therefore formally a function of the elements of the cross-product of the two types. Not all tools may be able to work with non-unique targets or controllers.¶

interval<BASE> = (
  BASE => int             ; lower bound
  (BASE .plus 1) => int   ; upper bound
  ? (BASE .plus 2) => int ; tolerance
)

X = 0
Y = 3
rect = {
  interval<X>
  interval<Y>
}

c = "foo" .cat '
  bar
  baz
'
; on a system where the newline is \n, is the same string as:
b = "foo\n  bar\n  baz\n"

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
'

oid = bytes .abnfb 'oid
oid = 1*arc
roid = *arc
arc = [nlsb] %x00-7f
nlsb = %x81-ff *%x80-ff
'

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, and the controller is the text of an ABNF specification.¶

There are several small issues; the solutions are given here:¶

   CRLF = %x0A / %x0D.0A

These points are combined into an example in Figure 5, which uses ABNF from [RFC3339] to specify one of each of the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) tags defined in [RFC8943] and [RFC8949].¶

; for RFC 8943
Tag1004 = #6.1004(text .abnf full-date)
; for RFC 8949
Tag0 = #6.0(text .abnf date-time)

full-date = "full-date" .cat rfc3339
date-time = "date-time" .cat 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
' .det rfc5234-core

rfc5234-core = '
   DIGIT          =  %x30-39 ; 0-9
   ; abbreviated here
'

4. Features

Commonly, the kind of validation enabled by languages such as CDDL provides 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 and accept such extensions while marking them as extensions.¶

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 to 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), as illustrated in Figure 6.¶

foo = {
  kind: bar / baz .feature (["foo-extensions", "bazify"])
}
bar = ...
baz = ... ; complex stuff that doesn't all need to be in the detail

Figure 7 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.¶

Leaving out the entire extension point would mean that instances that make use of an extension would be marked as wholesale 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 8 shows another example where .feature provides for type extensibility.¶

allowed-types = number / text / bool / null
              / [* number] / [* text] / [* bool]
              / (any .feature "allowed-type-extension")

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, as illustrated in Figure 9, using Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML) [RFC8428] as the example data model used with both JSON and CBOR.¶

SenML-Record = {
; ...
  ? v => number
; ...
}
v = JC<"v", 2>
JC<J,C> = 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.¶

5. IANA Considerations

IANA has registered the contents of Table 2 into the "CDDL Control Operators" registry of [IANA.cddl]:¶

6. Security Considerations

The security considerations of [RFC8610] apply.¶

While both [RFC5234] and [RFC7405] state that security is truly believed to be irrelevant to the respective document, the use of formal description techniques cannot only simplify but sometimes also complicate a specification. This can lead to security problems in implementations and in the specification itself. As with CDDL itself, ABNF should be judiciously applied, and overly complex (or "cute") constructions should be avoided.¶

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.¶

.det is an abbreviation for "dedenting cat", but Det is also the name of a German TV cartoon character created in the 1960s.¶

Author's Address