Network Working Group C. Bormann Internet-Draft Universität Bremen TZI Intended status: Informational 27 August 2024 Expires: 28 February 2025 CDDL models for some existing RFCs draft-bormann-cbor-rfc-cddl-models-04 Abstract 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. 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 28 February 2025. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Bormann Expires 28 February 2025 [Page 1] Internet-Draft CDDL models for some existing RFCs August 2024 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. CDDL definitions for (almost) published RFCs . . . . . . . . 2 2.1. RFC 7071 (Reputation Interchange) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.2. RFC 8366 (Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping Protocols) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3. RFC 9457 (Problem Details for HTTP APIs) . . . . . . . . 3 2.4. RFC 9595 (YANG-SID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.5. Your favorite RFC here... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. CDDL definitions derived from IANA registries . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. COSE algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1. Introduction (Please see abstract.) Add in [STD94] [STD90] [RFC8610] [RFC9165] [I-D.ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control] 2. CDDL definitions for (almost) published RFCs 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. 2.1. RFC 7071 (Reputation Interchange) 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. Bormann Expires 28 February 2025 [Page 2] Internet-Draft CDDL models for some existing RFCs August 2024 2.2. RFC 8366 (Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping Protocols) [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$date-and-time // nonce: json-binary ) assertion: assertion serial-number: text ? idevid-issuer: json-binary pinned-domain-cert: json-binary ? domain-cert-revocation-checks: bool } } assertion = "verified" / "logged" / "proximity" yang$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 .cat B) .cat C json-binary = 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 - 2.3. RFC 9457 (Problem Details for HTTP APIs) [RFC9457] defines a simple data model that is reproduced in CDDL here: Bormann Expires 28 February 2025 [Page 3] Internet-Draft CDDL models for some existing RFCs August 2024 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. 2.4. RFC 9595 (YANG-SID) [RFC9595] 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$yang-identifier ? module-revision: revision-identifier ? sid-file-version: sid-file-version-identifier ? sid-file-status: "unpublished" / "published" ? description: text ? dependency-revision: [* dependency-revision] ? assignment-range: [* assignment-range] ? item: [*item] } } rep=cat3<"(", RE, ")*"> opt=cat3<"(", RE, ")?"> cat3 = (A .cat B) .cat C id-re = "[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9\\-_.]*" yang$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 .cat id-re schema-node-re = cat3, plus-id<":">, ; qualified rep .cat ; optionally Bormann Expires 28 February 2025 [Page 4] Internet-Draft CDDL models for some existing RFCs August 2024 opt> > > ; 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 } 2.5. Your favorite RFC here... 3. CDDL definitions derived from IANA registries Often, CDDL models need to use numbers that have been registered as values in IANA registries. This section is intended to have one subsection for each CDDL data model presented that is derived from an existing IANA registry. As a start, it is fleshed out with one such data model. The intention is that these reference modules are update automatically (after each change of the registry or periodically, frequent enough.) Hence, this document can only present a snapshot for IANA-derived data models. The model(s) presented here clearly are in proof-of-concept stage; suggestions for improvement are very welcome. 3.1. COSE algorithms The IANA registry for COSE Algorithms is part of the IANA cose registry group [IANA.cose]. Bormann Expires 28 February 2025 [Page 5] Internet-Draft CDDL models for some existing RFCs August 2024 The following automatically derived model defines some 70 CDDL rules that have the name for a COSE algorithm as its rule name and the actual algorithm number as its right hand side. The additional first rule is a type choice between all these constants; this could be used in places that just have to validate the presence of a COSE algorithm number that was registered at the time the model was derived. This section does not explore potential filtering of the registry entries, e.g., by recommended status (such as leaving out deprecated entries) or by capabilities. The names given in the COSE algorithms registry are somewhat irregular and do not consider their potential use in modeling or programming languages; the automatic derivation used here turns sequences of one or more spaces and other characters that cannot be in CDDL names ([/+] here) into underscores. ============= NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792 ============== algorithms = RS1 / A128CTR / A192CTR / A256CTR / A128CBC / \ A192CBC / A256CBC / WalnutDSA / RS512 / RS384 / RS256 / \ ES256K / HSS-LMS / SHAKE256 / SHA-512 / SHA-384 / RSAES-\ OAEP_w_SHA-512 / RSAES-OAEP_w_SHA-256 / RSAES-\ OAEP_w_RFC_8017_default_parameters / PS512 / PS384 / PS256 / \ ES512 / ES384 / ECDH-SS_A256KW / ECDH-SS_A192KW / ECDH-\ SS_A128KW / ECDH-ES_A256KW / ECDH-ES_A192KW / ECDH-ES_A128KW \ / ECDH-SS_HKDF-512 / ECDH-SS_HKDF-256 / ECDH-ES_HKDF-512 / \ ECDH-ES_HKDF-256 / SHAKE128 / SHA-512_256 / SHA-256 / SHA-\ 256_64 / SHA-1 / direct_HKDF-AES-256 / direct_HKDF-AES-128 / \ direct_HKDF-SHA-512 / direct_HKDF-SHA-256 / EdDSA / ES256 / \ direct / A256KW / A192KW / A128KW / A128GCM / A192GCM / \ A256GCM / HMAC_256_64 / HMAC_256_256 / HMAC_384_384 / \ HMAC_512_512 / AES-CCM-16-64-128 / AES-CCM-16-64-256 / AES-CCM\ -64-64-128 / AES-CCM-64-64-256 / AES-MAC_128_64 / AES-\ MAC_256_64 / ChaCha20_Poly1305 / AES-MAC_128_128 / AES-\ MAC_256_128 / AES-CCM-16-128-128 / AES-CCM-16-128-256 / AES-\ CCM-64-128-128 / AES-CCM-64-128-256 / IV-GENERATION RS1 = -65535 A128CTR = -65534 A192CTR = -65533 A256CTR = -65532 A128CBC = -65531 A192CBC = -65530 A256CBC = -65529 WalnutDSA = -260 RS512 = -259 RS384 = -258 RS256 = -257 Bormann Expires 28 February 2025 [Page 6] Internet-Draft CDDL models for some existing RFCs August 2024 ES256K = -47 HSS-LMS = -46 SHAKE256 = -45 SHA-512 = -44 SHA-384 = -43 RSAES-OAEP_w_SHA-512 = -42 RSAES-OAEP_w_SHA-256 = -41 RSAES-OAEP_w_RFC_8017_default_parameters = -40 PS512 = -39 PS384 = -38 PS256 = -37 ES512 = -36 ES384 = -35 ECDH-SS_A256KW = -34 ECDH-SS_A192KW = -33 ECDH-SS_A128KW = -32 ECDH-ES_A256KW = -31 ECDH-ES_A192KW = -30 ECDH-ES_A128KW = -29 ECDH-SS_HKDF-512 = -28 ECDH-SS_HKDF-256 = -27 ECDH-ES_HKDF-512 = -26 ECDH-ES_HKDF-256 = -25 SHAKE128 = -18 SHA-512_256 = -17 SHA-256 = -16 SHA-256_64 = -15 SHA-1 = -14 direct_HKDF-AES-256 = -13 direct_HKDF-AES-128 = -12 direct_HKDF-SHA-512 = -11 direct_HKDF-SHA-256 = -10 EdDSA = -8 ES256 = -7 direct = -6 A256KW = -5 A192KW = -4 A128KW = -3 A128GCM = 1 A192GCM = 2 A256GCM = 3 HMAC_256_64 = 4 HMAC_256_256 = 5 HMAC_384_384 = 6 HMAC_512_512 = 7 AES-CCM-16-64-128 = 10 AES-CCM-16-64-256 = 11 AES-CCM-64-64-128 = 12 Bormann Expires 28 February 2025 [Page 7] Internet-Draft CDDL models for some existing RFCs August 2024 AES-CCM-64-64-256 = 13 AES-MAC_128_64 = 14 AES-MAC_256_64 = 15 ChaCha20_Poly1305 = 24 AES-MAC_128_128 = 25 AES-MAC_256_128 = 26 AES-CCM-16-128-128 = 30 AES-CCM-16-128-256 = 31 AES-CCM-64-128-128 = 32 AES-CCM-64-128-256 = 33 IV-GENERATION = 34 4. IANA Considerations This document makes no requests of IANA. However, the use of IANA registries for deriving CDDL (e.g., as in Section 3) is an active subject of discussion. 5. Security considerations The security considerations of [RFC8610], [RFC9165], [I-D.ietf-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. 6. References 6.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control] Bormann, C., "More Control Operators for CDDL", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more- control-06, 21 July 2024, . [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, . Bormann Expires 28 February 2025 [Page 8] Internet-Draft CDDL models for some existing RFCs August 2024 [RFC9165] Bormann, C., "Additional Control Operators for the Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL)", RFC 9165, DOI 10.17487/RFC9165, December 2021, . [STD90] Internet Standard 90, . At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following: Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017, . [STD94] Internet Standard 94, . At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following: Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949, DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020, . 6.2. Informative References [IANA.cose] IANA, "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)", . [RFC7071] Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Media Type for Reputation Interchange", RFC 7071, DOI 10.17487/RFC7071, November 2013, . [RFC7807] Nottingham, M. and E. Wilde, "Problem Details for HTTP APIs", RFC 7807, DOI 10.17487/RFC7807, March 2016, . [RFC8366] Watsen, K., Richardson, M., Pritikin, M., and T. Eckert, "A Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping Protocols", RFC 8366, DOI 10.17487/RFC8366, May 2018, . [RFC9290] Fossati, T. and C. Bormann, "Concise Problem Details for Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) APIs", RFC 9290, DOI 10.17487/RFC9290, October 2022, . Bormann Expires 28 February 2025 [Page 9] Internet-Draft CDDL models for some existing RFCs August 2024 [RFC9457] Nottingham, M., Wilde, E., and S. Dalal, "Problem Details for HTTP APIs", RFC 9457, DOI 10.17487/RFC9457, July 2023, . [RFC9595] Veillette, M., Ed., Pelov, A., Ed., Petrov, I., Ed., Bormann, C., and M. Richardson, "YANG Schema Item iDentifier (YANG SID)", RFC 9595, DOI 10.17487/RFC9595, July 2024, . Acknowledgements TBD Author's Address Carsten Bormann Universität Bremen TZI Postfach 330440 D-28359 Bremen Germany Phone: +49-421-218-63921 Email: cabo@tzi.org Bormann Expires 28 February 2025 [Page 10]