Skip to main content

Notable CBOR Tags
draft-bormann-cbor-notable-tags-06

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
Author Carsten Bormann
Last updated 2022-02-23
RFC stream (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-bormann-cbor-notable-tags-06
Network Working Group                                         C. Bormann
Internet-Draft                                    Universität Bremen TZI
Intended status: Informational                          23 February 2022
Expires: 27 August 2022

                           Notable CBOR Tags
                   draft-bormann-cbor-notable-tags-06

Abstract

   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 tags as
   well as a registry that can be used to contribute additional tag
   definitions [IANA.cbor-tags].  Since RFC 7049 was published, some 80
   tag definitions 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 a 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.

Note to Readers

   This is an individual submission to the CBOR working group of the
   IETF, https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/cbor/about/
   (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/cbor/about/).  Discussion currently
   takes places on the github repository https://github.com/cabo/
   notable-tags (https://github.com/cabo/notable-tags).  If the CBOR WG
   believes this is a useful document, discussion is likely to move to
   the CBOR WG mailing list and a github repository at the CBOR WG
   github organization, https://github.com/cbor-wg (https://github.com/
   cbor-wg).

   The current version is true work in progress; some of the sections
   haven't been filled in yet, and in particular, permission has not
   been obtained from tag definition authors to copy over their text.

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

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 27 August 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  RFC 7049 (original CBOR specification)  . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Tags Related to Those Defined in RFC 7049 . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Tags from RFC 7049 not listed in RFC 8949 . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  RFC 8152 (COSE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  RFC 8392 (CWT)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  CBOR-based Representation Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  YANG-CBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  DOTS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  RAINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Datatypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.1.  Advanced arithmetic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

     6.2.  Variants of undefined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.3.  Typed and Homogeneous Arrays  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Domain-Specific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.1.  Extended Time Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  Platform-oriented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.1.  Perl  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.2.  JSON  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.3.  Weird text encodings  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  Application-specific  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     9.1.  Enumerated Alternative Data Items . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       9.1.1.  Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       9.1.2.  Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       9.1.3.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   10. Implementation aids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     10.1.  Invalid Tag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26

1.  Introduction

   (TO DO, expand on text from abstract here; move references here and
   neuter them in the abstract as per Section 4.3 of [RFC7322].)

   The selection of the tags presented here is somewhat arbitrary;
   considerations such as how wide the scope and area of application of
   a tag definition is combine with an assessment how "ready to use" the
   tag definition is (i.e., is the tag specification in a state where it
   can be used).

   This document can only be a snapshot of a subset of the current
   registrations.  The most up to date set of registrations is always
   available in the registry "CBOR Tags" [IANA.cbor-tags].

1.1.  Terminology

   The definitions of [STD94] 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, encoded in UTF-8
   [STD63].  Where bit arithmetic is explained, this document uses the
   notation familiar from the programming language C ([C], including

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

   C++14's 0bnnn binary literals [Cplusplus20]), except that superscript
   notation (example for two to the power of 64: 2^64) denotes
   exponentiation; in the plain text version of this document,
   superscript notation is rendered in paragraph text by C-incompatible
   surrogate notation as seen in this example.  Ranges expressed using
   .. are inclusive of the limits given.  Type names such as "int",
   "bigint" or "decfrac" are taken from Appendix D of [RFC8610], the
   Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL).

2.  RFC 7049 (original CBOR specification)

   [RFC7049] defines a number of tags that are listed here for
   convenience only.

     +============+=============+=======================+============+
     | Tag number | Tag content | Short Description     | Section of |
     |            |             |                       | RFC 7049   |
     +============+=============+=======================+============+
     | 0          | UTF-8       | Standard date/time    | 2.4.1      |
     |            | string      | string                |            |
     +------------+-------------+-----------------------+------------+
     | 1          | multiple    | Epoch-based date/time | 2.4.1      |
     +------------+-------------+-----------------------+------------+
     | 2          | byte string | Positive bignum       | 2.4.2      |
     +------------+-------------+-----------------------+------------+
     | 3          | byte string | Negative bignum       | 2.4.2      |
     +------------+-------------+-----------------------+------------+
     | 4          | array       | Decimal fraction      | 2.4.3      |
     +------------+-------------+-----------------------+------------+
     | 5          | array       | Bigfloat              | 2.4.3      |
     +------------+-------------+-----------------------+------------+
     | 21         | multiple    | Expected conversion   | 2.4.4.2    |
     |            |             | to base64url encoding |            |
     +------------+-------------+-----------------------+------------+
     | 22         | multiple    | Expected conversion   | 2.4.4.2    |
     |            |             | to base64 encoding    |            |
     +------------+-------------+-----------------------+------------+
     | 23         | multiple    | Expected conversion   | 2.4.4.2    |
     |            |             | to base16 encoding    |            |
     +------------+-------------+-----------------------+------------+
     | 24         | byte string | Encoded CBOR data     | 2.4.4.1    |
     |            |             | item                  |            |
     +------------+-------------+-----------------------+------------+
     | 32         | UTF-8       | URI                   | 2.4.4.3    |
     |            | string      |                       |            |
     +------------+-------------+-----------------------+------------+
     | 33         | UTF-8       | base64url             | 2.4.4.3    |
     |            | string      |                       |            |

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

     +------------+-------------+-----------------------+------------+
     | 34         | UTF-8       | base64                | 2.4.4.3    |
     |            | string      |                       |            |
     +------------+-------------+-----------------------+------------+
     | 35         | UTF-8       | Regular expression    | 2.4.4.3    |
     |            | string      |                       |            |
     +------------+-------------+-----------------------+------------+
     | 36         | UTF-8       | MIME message          | 2.4.4.3    |
     |            | string      |                       |            |
     +------------+-------------+-----------------------+------------+
     | 55799      | multiple    | Self-describe CBOR    | 2.4.5      |
     +------------+-------------+-----------------------+------------+

                  Table 1: Tag numbers defined in RFC 7049

2.1.  Tags Related to Those Defined in RFC 7049

   Separately registered tags that are directly related to the tags
   predefined in RFC 7049 include:

   *  Tag 63, registered by this document, is a parallel to tag 24, with
      the single difference that its byte string tag content carries a
      CBOR Sequence [RFC8742] instead of a single CBOR data item.

   *  Tag 257, registered by Peter Occil with a specification in
      http://peteroupc.github.io/CBOR/binarymime.html
      (http://peteroupc.github.io/CBOR/binarymime.html), is a parallel
      to tag 36, except that the tag content is a byte string, which
      therefore can also carry binary MIME messages as per [RFC2045].

2.2.  Tags from RFC 7049 not listed in RFC 8949

   Appendix G.3 of [STD94] states:

   |  Tag 35 is not defined by this document; the registration based on
   |  the definition in RFC 7049 remains in place.

   The reason for this exclusion is that the definition of Tag 35 in
   Section 2.4.4.3 of [RFC7049], leaves too much open to ensure
   interoperability:

   |  Tag 35 is for regular expressions in Perl Compatible Regular
   |  Expressions (PCRE) / JavaScript syntax [ECMA262].

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

   Not only are two partially incompatible specifications given for the
   semantics, JavaScript regular expressions have also developed
   significantly within the decade since JavaScript 5.1 (which was
   referenced as "ECMA262" by [RFC7049]), making it less reliable to
   assume that a producing application will manage to stay within that
   2011 subset.

   Nonetheless, the registration is in place, so it is available for
   applications that simply want to mark a text string as being a
   regular expression roughly of the PCRE/Javascript flavor families.

3.  Security

   A number of CBOR tags are defined in security specifications that
   make use of CBOR.

3.1.  RFC 8152 (COSE)

   [RFC8152] defines CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE).  A
   revision is in process that splits this specification into the data
   structure definitions [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct], which will
   define another tag for COSE standalone counter signature, and the
   algorithms employed [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs].

          +============+===============+=======================+
          | Tag number | Tag content   | Short Description     |
          +============+===============+=======================+
          | 16         | COSE_Encrypt0 | COSE Single Recipient |
          |            |               | Encrypted Data Object |
          +------------+---------------+-----------------------+
          | 17         | COSE_Mac0     | COSE Mac w/o          |
          |            |               | Recipients Object     |
          +------------+---------------+-----------------------+
          | 18         | COSE_Sign1    | COSE Single Signer    |
          |            |               | Data Object           |
          +------------+---------------+-----------------------+
          | 96         | COSE_Encrypt  | COSE Encrypted Data   |
          |            |               | Object                |
          +------------+---------------+-----------------------+
          | 97         | COSE_Mac      | COSE MACed Data       |
          |            |               | Object                |
          +------------+---------------+-----------------------+
          | 98         | COSE_Sign     | COSE Signed Data      |
          |            |               | Object                |
          +------------+---------------+-----------------------+

              Table 2: Tag numbers defined in RFC 8152, COSE

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

3.2.  RFC 8392 (CWT)

   [RFC8392] defines the CBOR Web Token (CWT), making use of COSE to
   define a CBOR variant of the JOSE Web Token (JWT), [RFC7519], a
   standardized security token that has found use in the area of web
   applications, but is not technically limited to those.

       +============+======================+======================+
       | Tag number | Tag content          | Short Description    |
       +============+======================+======================+
       | 61         | CBOR Web Token (CWT) | CBOR Web Token (CWT) |
       +------------+----------------------+----------------------+

         Table 3: Tag number defined for RFC 8392 CBOR Web Token
                                  (CWT)

4.  CBOR-based Representation Formats

   Representation formats can be built on top of CBOR.

4.1.  YANG-CBOR

   YANG [RFC7950] is a data modeling language originally designed in the
   context of the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241],
   now widely used for modeling management and configuration
   information.  [RFC7950] defines an XML-based representation format,
   and [RFC7951] defines a JSON-based [RFC8259] representation format
   for YANG.

   YANG-CBOR [I-D.ietf-core-yang-cbor] is a representation format for
   YANG data in CBOR.

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

   +========+======================+=====================+============+
   | Tag    | Tag content          | Short Description   | Section of |
   | number |                      |                     | YANG-CBOR  |
   +========+======================+=====================+============+
   | 43     | byte string          | YANG bits datatype  | 6.7        |
   +--------+----------------------+---------------------+------------+
   | 44     | unsigned integer     | YANG enumeration    | 6.6        |
   |        |                      | datatype            |            |
   +--------+----------------------+---------------------+------------+
   | 45     | unsigned integer or  | YANG identityref    | 6.10       |
   |        | text string          | datatype            |            |
   +--------+----------------------+---------------------+------------+
   | 46     | unsigned integer or  | YANG instance-      | 6.13       |
   |        | text string or array | identifier datatype |            |
   +--------+----------------------+---------------------+------------+
   | 47     | unsigned integer     | YANG Schema Item    | 3.2        |
   |        |                      | iDentifier (sid)    |            |
   +--------+----------------------+---------------------+------------+

                Table 4: Tag number defined for YANG-CBOR

5.  Protocols

   Protocols may want to allocate CBOR tag numbers to identify specific
   protocol elements.

5.1.  DOTS

   DDoS Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) defines tag number 271 for the DOTS
   signal channel object in [RFC9132].

5.2.  RAINS

   As an example for how experimental protocols can make use of CBOR tag
   definitions, the RAINS (Another Internet Naming Service) Protocol
   Specification defines tag number 15309736 for a RAINS Message
   [I-D.trammell-rains-protocol].  (The seemingly random tag number was
   chosen so that, when represented as an encoded CBOR tag argument, it
   contains the Unicode character "雨" (U+96E8) in UTF-8, which
   represents rain in a number of languages.)

6.  Datatypes

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

6.1.  Advanced arithmetic

   A number of tags have been registered for arithmetic representations
   beyond those built into CBOR and defined by tags in [RFC7049].  These
   are all documented under http://peteroupc.github.io/CBOR/; the last
   pathname component for the URL is given in Table 5.

   +============+=============+=======================+===============+
   | Tag number | Tag content | Short Description     | Reference     |
   +============+=============+=======================+===============+
   | 30         | array       | Rational number       | rational.html |
   +------------+-------------+-----------------------+---------------+
   | 264        | array       | Decimal fraction with | bigfrac.html  |
   |            |             | arbitrary exponent    |               |
   +------------+-------------+-----------------------+---------------+
   | 265        | array       | Bigfloat with         | bigfrac.html  |
   |            |             | arbitrary exponent    |               |
   +------------+-------------+-----------------------+---------------+
   | 268        | array       | Extended decimal      | extended.html |
   |            |             | fraction              |               |
   +------------+-------------+-----------------------+---------------+
   | 269        | array       | Extended bigfloat     | extended.html |
   +------------+-------------+-----------------------+---------------+
   | 270        | array       | Extended rational     | extended.html |
   |            |             | number                |               |
   +------------+-------------+-----------------------+---------------+

                  Table 5: Tags for advanced arithmetic

   CBOR's basic generic data model (Section 2 of [STD94]) has a number
   system with limited-range integers (major types 0 and 1:
   -2^64..2^64-1) and floating point numbers that cover binary16,
   binary32, and binary64 (including non-finites) from [IEEE754].  With
   the tags defined with [RFC7049], the extended generic data model
   (Section 2.1 of [STD94]) adds unlimited-range integers (tag numbers 2
   and 3, "bigint" in CDDL) as well as floating point values using the
   bases 2 (tag number 5, "bigfloat") and 10 (tag number 4, "decfrac").

   This pre-defined number system has a number of limitations that are
   addressed in three of the tags discussed here:

   *  Tag number 30 allows the representation of rational numbers as a
      ratio of two integers: a numerator (usually written as the top
      part of a fraction), and a denominator (the bottom part), where
      both integers can be limited-range basic and unlimited-range
      integers.  The mathematical value of a rational number is the
      numerator divided by the denominator.  This tag can express all
      numbers that the extended generic data model of [RFC7049] can

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

      express, except for non-finites [IEEE754]; it also can express
      rational numbers that cannot be expressed with denominators that
      are a power of 2 or a power of 10.

      For example, the rational number 1/3 is encoded:

        d8 1e      ---- Tag 30
           82      ---- Array length 2
              01   ---- 1
              03   ---- 3

      Many programming languages have built-in support for rational
      numbers or support for them is included in their standard
      libraries; tag number 30 is a way for these platforms to
      interchange these rational numbers in CBOR.

   *  Tag numbers 4 and 5 are limited in the range of the (base 10 or
      base 2) exponents by the limited-range integers in the basic
      generic data model.  Tag numbers 264 and 265 are exactly
      equivalent to 4 and 5, respectively, but also allow unlimited-
      range integers as exponents.  While applications for floating
      point numbers with exponents outside the CBOR basic integer range
      are limited, tags 264 and 265 allow unlimited roundtripping with
      other formats that allow very large or very small exponents, such
      as those JSON [RFC8259] can provide if the limitations of I-JSON
      [RFC7493] do not apply.

   The tag numbers 268..270 extend these tags further by providing a way
   to express non-finites within a tag with this number.  This does not
   increase the expressiveness of the data model (the non-finites can
   already be expressed using major type 7 floating point numbers), but
   does allow both finite and non-finite values to carry the same tag.
   In most applications, a choice that includes some of the three tags
   30, 264, 265 for finite values and major type 7 floating point values
   for non-finites (as well as possibly other parts of the CBOR number
   system) will be the preferred solution.

   This document suggests using the CDDL typenames defined in Figure 1
   for the three most useful tag numbers in this section.

   rational = #6.30([numerator: integer, denominator: integer .ne 0])
   rational_of<N,D> = #6.30([numerator: N, denominator: D])
   ; the value 1/3 can be notated as rational_of<1, 3>

   extended_decfrac = #6.264([e10: integer, m: integer])
   extended_bigfloat = #6.265([e2: integer, m: integer])

                Figure 1: CDDL for extended arithmetic tags

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

6.2.  Variants of undefined

   https://github.com/svaarala/cbor-specs/blob/master/cbor-absent-
   tag.rst defines tag 31 to be applied to the CBOR value Undefined
   (0xf7), slightly modifying its semantics to stand for an absent value
   in a CBOR Array.

   (TO DO: Obtain permission to copy the definitions here.)

6.3.  Typed and Homogeneous Arrays

   [RFC8746] defines tags for various kinds of arrays.  A summary is
   reproduced in Table 6.

   +======+=============+=============================================+
   | Tag  | Data Item   | Semantics                                   |
   +======+=============+=============================================+
   | 64   | byte string | uint8 Typed Array                           |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 65   | byte string | uint16, big endian, Typed Array             |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 66   | byte string | uint32, big endian, Typed Array             |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 67   | byte string | uint64, big endian, Typed Array             |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 68   | byte string | uint8 Typed Array, clamped arithmetic       |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 69   | byte string | uint16, little endian, Typed Array          |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 70   | byte string | uint32, little endian, Typed Array          |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 71   | byte string | uint64, little endian, Typed Array          |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 72   | byte string | sint8 Typed Array                           |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 73   | byte string | sint16, big endian, Typed Array             |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 74   | byte string | sint32, big endian, Typed Array             |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 75   | byte string | sint64, big endian, Typed Array             |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 76   | byte string | (reserved)                                  |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 77   | byte string | sint16, little endian, Typed Array          |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 78   | byte string | sint32, little endian, Typed Array          |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 79   | byte string | sint64, little endian, Typed Array          |

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 80   | byte string | IEEE 754 binary16, big endian, Typed Array  |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 81   | byte string | IEEE 754 binary32, big endian, Typed Array  |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 82   | byte string | IEEE 754 binary64, big endian, Typed Array  |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 83   | byte string | IEEE 754 binary128, big endian, Typed Array |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 84   | byte string | IEEE 754 binary16, little endian, Typed     |
   |      |             | Array                                       |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 85   | byte string | IEEE 754 binary32, little endian, Typed     |
   |      |             | Array                                       |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 86   | byte string | IEEE 754 binary64, little endian, Typed     |
   |      |             | Array                                       |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 87   | byte string | IEEE 754 binary128, little endian, Typed    |
   |      |             | Array                                       |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 40   | array of    | Multi-dimensional Array, row-major order    |
   |      | two arrays* |                                             |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 1040 | array of    | Multi-dimensional Array, column-major order |
   |      | two arrays* |                                             |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+
   | 41   | array       | Homogeneous Array                           |
   +------+-------------+---------------------------------------------+

                 Table 6: Tag numbers defined for Arrays

7.  Domain-Specific

   (TO DO: Obtain permission to copy the definitions here; explain how
   tags 52 and 54 essentially obsolete 260/261.)

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

   +======+=======+=================+=================================+========+
   |Tag   |Tag    |Short Description|Reference                        |Author  |
   |number|content|                 |                                 |        |
   +======+=======+=================+=================================+========+
   |37    |byte   |Binary UUID      |https://github.com/lucas-        |Lucas   |
   |      |string |(Section 4.1.2 of|clemente/cbor-specs/blob/master/ |Clemente|
   |      |       |[RFC4122])       |uuid.md                          |        |
   +------+-------+-----------------+---------------------------------+--------+
   |38    |array  |Language-tagged  |http://peteroupc.github.io/CBOR/ |Peter   |
   |      |       |string           |langtags.html                    |Occil   |
   +------+-------+-----------------+---------------------------------+--------+
   |257   |byte   |Binary MIME      |http://peteroupc.github.io/CBOR/ |Peter   |
   |      |string |message          |binarymime.html                  |Occil   |
   +------+-------+-----------------+---------------------------------+--------+
   |260   |byte   |Network Address  |http://www.employees.org/~ravir/ |Ravi    |
   |      |string |(IPv4 or IPv6 or |cbor-network.txt                 |Raju    |
   |      |       |MAC Address)     |                                 |        |
   +------+-------+-----------------+---------------------------------+--------+
   |261   |map    |Network Address  |https://github.com/toravir/CBOR- |Ravi    |
   |      |       |Prefix (IPv4 or  |Tag-Specs/blob/master/           |Raju    |
   |      |       |IPv6 Address +   |networkPrefix.md                 |        |
   |      |       |Mask Length)     |                                 |        |
   +------+-------+-----------------+---------------------------------+--------+
   |263   |byte   |Hexadecimal      |https://github.com/toravir/CBOR- |Ravi    |
   |      |string |string           |Tag-Specs/blob/master/           |Raju    |
   |      |       |                 |hexString.md                     |        |
   +------+-------+-----------------+---------------------------------+--------+
   |266   |text   |Internationalized|https://peteroupc.github.io/CBOR/|Peter   |
   |      |string |resource         |iri.html                         |Occil   |
   |      |       |identifier (IRI) |                                 |        |
   +------+-------+-----------------+---------------------------------+--------+
   |267   |text   |Internationalized|https://peteroupc.github.io/CBOR/|Peter   |
   |      |string |resource         |iri.html                         |Occil   |
   |      |       |identifier       |                                 |        |
   |      |       |reference (IRI   |                                 |        |
   |      |       |reference)       |                                 |        |
   +------+-------+-----------------+---------------------------------+--------+

                                  Table 7

7.1.  Extended Time Formats

   Additional tag definitions have been provided for date and time
   values.

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

    +======+===========+===================+==========================+
    |  Tag | Data Item | Semantics         | Reference                |
    +======+===========+===================+==========================+
    |  100 | integer   | date in number of | [RFC8943]                |
    |      |           | days since epoch  |                          |
    +------+-----------+-------------------+--------------------------+
    | 1004 | text      | RFC 3339 full-    | [RFC8943]                |
    |      | string    | date string       |                          |
    +------+-----------+-------------------+--------------------------+
    | 1001 | map       | extended time     | [I-D.ietf-cbor-time-tag] |
    +------+-----------+-------------------+--------------------------+
    | 1002 | map       | duration          | [I-D.ietf-cbor-time-tag] |
    +------+-----------+-------------------+--------------------------+
    | 1003 | map       | period            | [I-D.ietf-cbor-time-tag] |
    +------+-----------+-------------------+--------------------------+

                   Table 8: Tag numbers for date and time

   Note that tags 100 and 1004 are for calendar dates that are not
   anchored to a specific time zone; they are meant to specify calendar
   dates as perceived by humans, e.g. for use in personal identification
   documents.  Converting such a calendar date into a specific point in
   time needs the addition of a time-of-day (for which a CBOR tag is
   outstanding) and timezone information (also outstanding).
   Alternatively, a calendar date plus timezone information can be
   converted into a time period (range of time values given by the
   starting and the ending time); note that these time periods are not
   always exactly 24 h (86400 s) long.

   [RFC8943] does not suggest CDDL [RFC8610] type names for the two
   tags.  We suggest copying the definitions in Figure 2 into
   application-specific CDDL as needed.

   caldate = #6.100(int) ; calendar date as a number of days from 1970-01-01
   tcaldate = #6.1004(tstr) ; calendar date as an RFC 3339 full-date string

              Figure 2: CDDL for calendar date tags (RFC8943)

   Tag 1001 extends tag 1 by additional information (such as picosecond
   resolution) and allows the use of Decimal and Bigfloat numbers for
   the time.

8.  Platform-oriented

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

8.1.  Perl

   (These are actually not as Perl-specific as the title of this section
   suggests.  See also the penultimate paragraph of Section 3.4 of
   [STD94].)

   These are all documented under http://cbor.schmorp.de/; the last
   pathname component is given in Table 9.

   (TO DO: Obtain permission to copy the definitions here.)

      +=======+==========+========================+================+
      |   Tag | Data     | Semantics              | Reference      |
      |       | Item     |                        |                |
      +=======+==========+========================+================+
      |   256 | multiple | mark value as having   | stringref      |
      |       |          | string references      |                |
      +-------+----------+------------------------+----------------+
      |    25 | unsigned | reference the nth      | stringref      |
      |       | integer  | previously seen string |                |
      +-------+----------+------------------------+----------------+
      |    26 | array    | Serialized Perl object | perl-object    |
      |       |          | with classname and     |                |
      |       |          | constructor arguments  |                |
      +-------+----------+------------------------+----------------+
      |    27 | array    | Serialized language-   | generic-object |
      |       |          | independent object     |                |
      |       |          | with type name and     |                |
      |       |          | constructor arguments  |                |
      +-------+----------+------------------------+----------------+
      |    28 | multiple | mark value as          | value-sharing  |
      |       |          | (potentially) shared   |                |
      +-------+----------+------------------------+----------------+
      |    29 | unsigned | reference nth marked   | value-sharing  |
      |       | integer  | value                  |                |
      +-------+----------+------------------------+----------------+
      | 22098 | multiple | hint that indicates an | indirection    |
      |       |          | additional level of    |                |
      |       |          | indirection            |                |
      +-------+----------+------------------------+----------------+

             Table 9: Tag numbers that aid the Perl platform

8.2.  JSON

   (TO DO: Obtain permission to copy the definitions here.)

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

   Tag number 262 has been registered to identify byte strings that
   carry embedded JSON text (https://github.com/toravir/CBOR-Tag-
   Specs/blob/master/embeddedJSON.md).

   Tag number 275 can be used to identify maps that contain keys that
   are all of type Text String, as they would occur in JSON
   (https://github.com/ecorm/cbor-tag-text-key-map).

8.3.  Weird text encodings

   (TO DO: Obtain permission to copy the definitions here.)

   Some variants of UTF-8 are in use in specific areas of application.
   Tags have been registered to be able to carry around strings in these
   variants in case they are not also valid UTF-8 and can therefore not
   be represented as a CBOR text string (https://github.com/svaarala/
   cbor-specs/blob/master/cbor-nonutf8-string-tags.rst).

          +============+=============+=========================+
          | Tag Number | Data Item   | Semantics               |
          +============+=============+=========================+
          |        272 | byte string | Non-UTF-8 CESU-8 string |
          +------------+-------------+-------------------------+
          |        273 | byte string | Non-UTF-8 WTF-8 string  |
          +------------+-------------+-------------------------+
          |        274 | byte string | Non-UTF-8 MUTF-8 string |
          +------------+-------------+-------------------------+

                 Table 10: Tag numbers for UTF-8 variants

9.  Application-specific

   (TO DO: Obtain permission to copy the definitions here.)

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                [Page 16]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

   +======+========+====================+===================================================+========+
   |Tag   |Tag     |Short Description   |Reference                                          |Author  |
   |number|content |                    |                                                   |        |
   +======+========+====================+===================================================+========+
   |39    |multiple|Identifier          |[https://github.com/lucas-clemente/cbor-           |Lucas   |
   |      |        |                    |specs/blob/master/id.md                            |Clemente|
   +------+--------+--------------------+---------------------------------------------------+--------+
   |42    |byte    |IPLD content        |[https://github.com/ipld/cid-cbor/                 |Volker  |
   |      |string  |identifier          |                                                   |Mische  |
   +------+--------+--------------------+---------------------------------------------------+--------+
   |103   |array   |Geographic          |[https://github.com/allthingstalk/cbor/blob/master/|Danilo  |
   |      |        |Coordinates         |CBOR-Tag103-Geographic-Coordinates.md              |Vidovic |
   +------+--------+--------------------+---------------------------------------------------+--------+
   |104   |multiple|Geographic          |[I-D.clarke-cbor-crs]                              |        |
   |      |        |Coordinate Reference|                                                   |        |
   |      |        |System WKT or EPSG  |                                                   |        |
   |      |        |number              |                                                   |        |
   +------+--------+--------------------+---------------------------------------------------+--------+
   |120   |multiple|Internet of Things  |[https://github.com/allthingstalk/cbor/blob/master/|Danilo  |
   |      |        |Data Point          |CBOR-Tag120-Internet-of-Things-Data-Points.md      |Vidovic |
   +------+--------+--------------------+---------------------------------------------------+--------+
   |258   |array   |Mathematical finite |[https://github.com/input-output-hk/cbor-sets-     |Alfredo |
   |      |        |set                 |spec/blob/master/CBOR_SETS.md                      |Di      |
   |      |        |                    |                                                   |Napoli  |
   +------+--------+--------------------+---------------------------------------------------+--------+
   |259   |map     |Map datatype with   |[https://github.com/shanewholloway/js-cbor-        |Shane   |
   |      |        |key-value operations|codec/blob/master/docs/CBOR-259-spec--explicit-    |Holloway|
   |      |        |(e.g. .get          |maps.md                                            |        |
   |      |        |()/.set()/.delete())|                                                   |        |
   +------+--------+--------------------+---------------------------------------------------+--------+

                                  Table 11

9.1.  Enumerated Alternative Data Items

   (Original Text for this section was contributed by Duncan Coutts and
   Michael Peyton Jones; all errors are the author's.)

   A set of CBOR tag numbers has been allocated (to do, Section 11) for
   encoding data composed of enumerated alternatives:

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                [Page 17]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

     +============+=============+===================================+
     |       Tags | Data Item   | Meaning                           |
     +============+=============+===================================+
     |   121..127 | any         | alternatives 0..6, 1+1 encoding   |
     +------------+-------------+-----------------------------------+
     | 1280..1400 | any         | alternatives 7..127, 1+2 encoding |
     +------------+-------------+-----------------------------------+
     |        101 | array       | alternatives as given by the uint |
     |            | [uint, any] | + 128                             |
     +------------+-------------+-----------------------------------+

           Table 12: Tags for Enumerated Alternative Data Items

   The tags defined in this section are for encoding data that can be in
   one of a number of different enumerated forms.

   For example data representing the result of some action might be
   either a failure with some failure detail, or a success with some
   result.  In this example there are two cases, the failure case and
   the success case, and we can enumerate them as 0 and 1.

   In general the number of alternatives, and what data is expected in
   each alternative case is entirely application dependent.

   The tags defined in this specification allow the encoding of any
   number of alternatives, but provide compact encoding for the common
   cases of low numbers of alternatives:

   *  Alternatives 0..6 can be encoded in 2 bytes;

   *  Alternatives 7..127 can be encoded in 3 bytes;

   *  Alternatives 128+ can be encoded in 3-12 bytes.

   There are no special considerations for deterministic encoding
   Section 4.2 of [STD94]: The case numbers covered by each tag do not
   overlap; particularly, tag 101 encoding starts where the more compact
   special encodings for 0..6 and 7..127 end.

9.1.1.  Semantics

   The value consists of a case number and a case body.  The case number
   is an unsigned integer that indicates which case out of the set of
   alternatives is used.  The case body is any CBOR data value.

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                [Page 18]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

   In a setting where the application uses a schema (formally or
   informally), then there will be an appropriate sub-schema for each
   case in the set of alternatives.  The representation of the case body
   should comply with the schema corresponding to the case number used.

   To continue the example above about representing failure or success,
   suppose that the failure detail consists of an integer code and a
   string, and suppose that the successful result is a byte string.  A
   failure value will use case 0 and the case body will be a CBOR list
   containing an integer and a text string.  Alternatively, a success
   value will use case 1 and the body will be a single CBOR byte string.

   Decoders that enforce a schema must check the case number is within
   the range of cases allowed, and that the case body follows the schema
   for the supplied case number.  Generic decoders should allow any case
   number and any CBOR data value for the case body.

9.1.2.  Rationale

   CBOR has direct support for _combinations_ of multiple values but not
   for _alternatives_ of multiple values.  Combinations are expressed in
   CBOR using lists or maps.

   Most programming languages have a notion of data consisting of
   combinations of data values, often called records or objects.  Many
   programming languages also have a notion of data consisting of
   multiple alternative data values.  For example C has unions, and
   other languages have "tagged" unions (where it is always clear which
   alternative is in use).

   Crucially for this set of tags, the set of alternatives must be
   closed and ordered.  This allows encoding using an unsigned number to
   distinguish each case.

   Note that this does _not_ correspond to the notion in some
   programming languages of classes and subclasses since in that context
   the set of alternatives is open and unordered.  Alternatives of this
   kind are well-supported by tag 27 "Serialized language-independent
   object with type name and constructor arguments".

   In functional programming languages, the primary way of forming new
   data types is to enumerate a set of alternatives (each of which may
   be a record).  Such forms of data are also supported in hybrid
   functional languages or languages with functional features.

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                [Page 19]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

   Thus, in some applications, it is very common to have data making use
   of alternatives, and it is worth finding a compact encoding, at least
   for the common cases.  Just as most records are small, most
   alternatives are also small.

   In this specification we reserve 7 values in the 2-byte part of the
   available tag encoding space for alternatives 0..6 which are by far
   the most common.  We reserve a range of 121 values in the 3-bytes tag
   encoding space.  To cover the general case we use an encoding using a
   pair consisting of an unsigned integer and the case body, the first
   24 of which also result in a 3-byte encoding.

9.1.3.  Examples

   To elaborate on the example from the introduction, we have a "result"
   that is a failure or success, where:

   *  the failure detail consists of an integer code and a string;

   *  the successful result is a byte string.

   This corresponds to the following schema, in CDDL notation:

   result = #6.121([int, text])
          / #6.122(bytes)

   Example values:

   121([3, "the printer is on fire"])

   122(h'ff00')

   As a second example, here is one based on a data type defined within
   the Haskell programming language, representing a simple expression
   tree.

   -- A data type representing simple arithmetic expressions

   data Expr = Lit Int -- integer literal
   | Add Expr Expr -- addition
   | Sub Expr Expr -- subtraction
   | Neg Expr -- unary negation
   | Mul Expr Expr -- multiplication
   | Div Expr Expr -- integer division

   In CDDL notation, and using the tags in this specification, such data
   could be encoded using this schema:

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                [Page 20]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

   ; A data type representing simple arithmetic expressions

   expr = 121(int)          ; integer literal
        / 122([expr, expr]) ; addition
        / 123([expr, expr]) ; subtraction
        / 124(expr)         ; unary negation
        / 125([expr, expr]) ; multiplication
        / 126([expr, expr]) ; integer division

10.  Implementation aids

10.1.  Invalid Tag

   The present document registers tag numbers 65535, 4294967295, and
   18446744073709551615 (16-bit 0xffff, 32-bit 0xffffffff, and 64-bit
   0xffffffffffffffff) as Invalid Tags, tags that are always invalid,
   independent of the tag content provided.  The purpose of these tag
   number registrations is to enable the tag numbers to be reserved for
   internal use by implementations to note the absence of a tag on a
   data item where a tag could also be expected with that data item as
   tag content.

   The Invalid Tags are not intended to ever occur in interchanged CBOR
   data items.  Generic CBOR decoder implementations are encouraged to
   raise an error if an Invalid Tag occurs in a CBOR data item even if
   there is no validity checking implemented otherwise.

11.  IANA Considerations

   In the registry "CBOR Tags" [IANA.cbor-tags], IANA has allocated the
   first to third tag in Table 13 from the FCFS space, with the present
   document as the specification reference.  IANA has allocated the
   fourth tag from the Specification Required space, with the present
   document as the specification reference.

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                [Page 21]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

   +======================+========+==============+====================+
   |                  Tag | Data   | Semantics    | Reference          |
   |                      | Item   |              |                    |
   +======================+========+==============+====================+
   |                65535 | (none  | always       | draft-bormann-     |
   |                      | valid) | invalid      | cbor-notable-tags, |
   |                      |        |              | Section 10.1       |
   +----------------------+--------+--------------+--------------------+
   |           4294967295 | (none  | always       | draft-bormann-     |
   |                      | valid) | invalid      | cbor-notable-tags, |
   |                      |        |              | Section 10.1       |
   +----------------------+--------+--------------+--------------------+
   | 18446744073709551615 | (none  | always       | draft-bormann-     |
   |                      | valid) | invalid      | cbor-notable-tags, |
   |                      |        |              | Section 10.1       |
   +----------------------+--------+--------------+--------------------+
   |                   63 | byte   | Encoded      | draft-bormann-     |
   |                      | string | CBOR         | cbor-notable-tags, |
   |                      |        | Sequence     | Section 2.1        |
   |                      |        | [RFC8742]    |                    |
   +----------------------+--------+--------------+--------------------+

                         Table 13: Values for Tags

   In addition, IANA is requested to allocate the tags from Table 12,
   with a reference to the present document.

12.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of [STD94] apply; the tags discussed here
   may also have specific security considerations that are mentioned in
   their specific sections above.

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-core-yang-cbor]
              Veillette, M., Petrov, I., Pelov, A., Bormann, C., and M.
              Richardson, "CBOR Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-yang-
              cbor-18, 19 December 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-core-yang-
              cbor-18.txt>.

   [IANA.cbor-tags]
              IANA, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags>.

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                [Page 22]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

   [RFC8152]  Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
              RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>.

   [RFC8392]  Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig,
              "CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392,
              May 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8392>.

   [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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.

   [RFC8746]  Bormann, C., Ed., "Concise Binary Object Representation
              (CBOR) Tags for Typed Arrays", RFC 8746,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8746, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8746>.

   [RFC9132]  Boucadair, M., Ed., Shallow, J., and T. Reddy.K,
              "Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling
              (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification", RFC 9132,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9132, September 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9132>.

   [STD94]    Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
              Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.

13.2.  Informative References

   [C]        International Organization for Standardization,
              "Information technology - Programming languages - C", ISO/
              IEC 9899:2018, June 2018,
              <https://www.iso.org/standard/74528.html>.

   [Cplusplus20]
              International Organization for Standardization,
              "Programming languages - C++", ISO/IEC ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22
              WG21 N 4860, March 2020,
              <https://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4860.pdf>.

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                [Page 23]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

   [I-D.clarke-cbor-crs]
              Clarke, T. R., "Concise Binary Object Representation
              (CBOR) Tag for Coordinate Reference System (CRS)
              Specification", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              clarke-cbor-crs-02, 17 March 2020,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-clarke-cbor-crs-
              02.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-cbor-time-tag]
              Bormann, C., Gamari, B., and H. Birkholz, "Concise Binary
              Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Time, Duration, and
              Period", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              cbor-time-tag-00, 19 May 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag-
              00.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs]
              Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
              Initial Algorithms", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-12, 24 September 2020,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cose-
              rfc8152bis-algs-12.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]
              Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
              Structures and Process", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-15, 1 February 2021,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cose-
              rfc8152bis-struct-15.txt>.

   [I-D.trammell-rains-protocol]
              Trammell, B. and C. Fehlmann, "RAINS (Another Internet
              Naming Service) Protocol Specification", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-trammell-rains-protocol-05, 29
              January 2019, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
              trammell-rains-protocol-05.txt>.

   [IEEE754]  IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", IEEE
              Std 754-2019, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2019.8766229,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8766229>.

   [RFC2045]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
              Bodies", RFC 2045, DOI 10.17487/RFC2045, November 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2045>.

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                [Page 24]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

   [RFC4122]  Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally
              Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4122, July 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4122>.

   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.

   [RFC7049]  Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
              Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
              October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.

   [RFC7322]  Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322>.

   [RFC7493]  Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7493>.

   [RFC7519]  Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Token
              (JWT)", RFC 7519, DOI 10.17487/RFC7519, May 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7519>.

   [RFC7950]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
              RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.

   [RFC7951]  Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",
              RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7951>.

   [RFC8259]  Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
              Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.

   [RFC8742]  Bormann, C., "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
              Sequences", RFC 8742, DOI 10.17487/RFC8742, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8742>.

   [RFC8943]  Jones, M., Nadalin, A., and J. Richter, "Concise Binary
              Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Date", RFC 8943,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8943, November 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8943>.

Bormann                  Expires 27 August 2022                [Page 25]
Internet-Draft              Notable CBOR Tags              February 2022

   [STD63]    Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
              2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.

Acknowledgements

   (Many, TBD)

Contributors

   Peter Occil
   Email: poccil14 at gmail dot com

   Peter Occil registered tags 30, 264, 265, 268-270 (Section 6.1), 38,
   257, 266 and 267 (Section 7), and contributed much of the text about
   these tags in this document.

   Duncan Coutts
   Email: duncan@well-typed.com

   Michael Peyton Jones
   Email: me@michaelpj.com

   Jane Doe
   To do

   Further contributors will be listed here as text is added.

   Plase stay tuned.

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 27 August 2022                [Page 26]