Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN)
draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-25
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (cbor WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Carsten Bormann | ||
| Last updated | 2026-05-20 (Latest revision 2026-05-18) | ||
| Replaces | draft-bormann-cbor-edn-literals | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Informational | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources |
GitHub Repository
Mailing list discussion |
||
| Stream | WG state | In WG Last Call | |
| Document shepherd | Paul E. Hoffman | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2024-05-03 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Andy Newton | ||
| Send notices to | christian@amsuess.com, paul.hoffman@icann.org | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA expert review state | Expert Reviews OK |
draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-25
Network Working Group C. Bormann
Internet-Draft Universität Bremen TZI
Updates: 8610, 8949 (if approved) 18 May 2026
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: 19 November 2026
Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN)
draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-25
Abstract
This document formalizes and consolidates the definition of the
Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) of the Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR), addressing implementer experience.
Replacing CDN's previous informal descriptions, it updates RFC 8949,
obsoleting its Section 8, and RFC 8610, obsoleting its Appendix G.
It also specifies registry-based extension points and uses them to
support text representations such as of epoch-based dates/times and
of IP addresses and prefixes.
// (This cref will be removed by the RFC editor:) The present -25 is
// intended for the May 2026 Working Group Last Call. It corrects a
// clerical error in -24, which completes the work started in PR #102
// and adds a couple of paragraphs on editorial conventions. It also
// makes a leap ahead beyond -24 by adopting and making a detailed
// proposal (PR #105) for a renaming choice that was discussed at the
// 2026-05-13 CBOR interim WG meeting.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://cbor-
wg.github.io/edn-literal/. Status information for this document may
be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-edn-
literals/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the cbor Working Group
mailing list (mailto:cbor@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/. Subscribe at
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/cbor-wg/edn-literal.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
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 19 November 2026.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Structure of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3. (Non-)Objectives of this Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3.1. For Humans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.2. Determinism? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.3. Basic Output Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Overview over Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) . . . . . . . 9
2.1. Application-Oriented Extension Literals . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2. Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.1. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3. Encoding Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.1. Syntax, Semantics, Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.4. Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.5. Strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
2.5.1. Double-Quoted String Literals . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.5.2. Single-Quoted String Literals . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.5.3. Raw String Literals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.5.4. Encoding Indicators of Strings . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.5.5. Base-Encoded Byte String Literals . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.5.6. CBOR Sequence Literals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.5.7. Validity of Text Strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.6. Arrays and Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.6.1. Mandatory Separators, Optional Terminators . . . . . 27
2.6.2. Encoding Indicators of Arrays and Maps . . . . . . . 28
2.6.3. Validity of Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.7. Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.8. Simple values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3. Application-Oriented Extension Literals . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.1. The "dt" Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2. The "ip" Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3. The "hash" Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.4. The "cri" Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4. Stand-in Representations in Binary CBOR . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.1. Handling unknown application-extension identifiers . . . 34
4.2. Handling information deliberately elided from a CDN
document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5. ABNF Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.1. Overall ABNF Definition for Concise Diagnostic
Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.1.1. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.2. ABNF Definitions for Application Extension Content . . . 45
5.2.1. h: ABNF Definition of Hexadecimal representation of a
byte string . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.2.2. b64: ABNF Definition of Base64 representation of a byte
string . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.2.3. dt: ABNF Definition of RFC 3339 Representation of a
Date/Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.2.4. ip: ABNF Definition of Textual Representation of an IP
Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.2.5. cri: ABNF Definition of URI Representation of a
CRI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.3. ABNF Definitions for Integrated Extension Parsers . . . . 52
5.3.1. h'': ABNF Definition of Integrated Parser . . . . . . 54
5.3.2. b64'': ABNF Definition of Integrated Parser . . . . . 55
5.3.3. h``: ABNF Definition of Integrated Parser . . . . . . 55
5.3.4. b64``: ABNF Definition of Integrated Parser . . . . . 55
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.1. Concise Diagnostic Notation Application-extension
Identifiers Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.2. Encoding Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.3. Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.4. Content-Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
6.5. Stand-in Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
7. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Appendix A. CDN and CDDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
1. Introduction
The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) (RFC8949) [STD94] 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 addition to the binary
interchange format, the original CBOR specification described a text-
based "diagnostic notation" (Section 6 of [RFC7049], now Section 8 of
RFC 8949 [STD94]), in order to be able to converse about CBOR data
items without having to resort to binary data. Appendix G of
[RFC8610] extended this into what also became known as Extended
Diagnostic Notation (EDN), often including Section 4.2 of [RFC8742]
and draft revisions of the present document. Diagnostic notation is
now specified by this document, obsoleting all these previous
descriptions, and is known as Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN).
Diagnostic notation syntax is based on JSON, with extensions for
representing CBOR constructs such as binary data and tags.
Standardizing CDN in addition to the actual binary interchange format
CBOR does not serve to create a competing interchange format, but
enables the use of a shared diagnostic notation in tools for and in
documents about CBOR. Still, between tools for CBOR development and
diagnosis, document generation systems, continuous integration (CI)
environments, configuration files, and user interfaces for viewing
and editing for all these, CDN is often "interchanged" and therefore
merits a specification that facilitates interoperability within this
domain as well as reliable translation to and from CBOR. CDN is not
designed or intended for general-purpose use in protocol elements
exchanged between systems engaged in processes outside those listed
here.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
This document consolidates and formalizes the definition of CDN,
providing a formal grammar (see Section 5.1 and Section 5.2), and
incorporating small changes based on implementation experience. It
updates RFC8949 by obsoleting Section 8 of RFC 8949 [STD94], and
[RFC8610] by obsoleting Appendix G of [RFC8610]. It is intended to
serve as the single reference target that can be used in
specifications that use CDN.
It also specifies two registry-based extension points for the
diagnostic notation: one for additional encoding indicators, and one
for adding application-oriented literal forms. It uses these
registries to add encoding indicators for a more complete coverage of
encoding variation, and to add application-oriented literal forms
that enhance CDN with text representations of epoch-based date/times,
of IP addresses and prefixes [RFC9164], and of Concise Resource
Identifiers (CRI [I-D.ietf-core-href]), as well as an application-
oriented literal that represents cryptographic hash values computed
from byte strings.
In addition, this document registers a media type identifier and a
content-format for CDN. This does not elevate its status as an
interchange format, but recognizes that interaction between tools is
often smoother if media types can be used.
| Examples in RFCs often do not use media type identifiers, but
| special sourcecode type names that are allocated in
| https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt
| (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt).
| At the time of writing, this resource lists four sourcecode
| type names that can be used in RFCs for including CBOR data
| items and CBOR-related languages:
|
| * cbor (which is actually not useful, as CBOR is a binary
| format and cannot be used in textual examples in an RFC),
|
| * cbor-diag (which is another name for CDN, as defined in
| the present document),
|
| * cbor-pretty (which is a possibly annotated and pretty-
| printed hexdump of an encoded CBOR data item, along the
| lines of the grammar of Section 5.2.1, as used for
| instance for some of the examples in Appendix A.3 of
| [RFC9290]), and
|
| * cddl (which is used for the Concise Data Definition
| Language, CDDL, see Section 1.2 below).
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
Note that CDN is not meant to be the only text-based representation
of CBOR data items. For instance, [YAML] [RFC9512] is able to
represent most CBOR data items, possibly requiring use of YAML's
extension points. YAML does not provide certain features that can be
useful with tools and documents needing text-based representations of
CBOR data items (such as embedded CBOR or encoding indicators), but
it does provide a host of other features that CDN does not provide
such as anchor/alias data sharing, at a cost of higher implementation
and learning complexity.
1.1. Structure of This Document
Section 2 of this document has been built from Section 8 of RFC 8949
[STD94] and Appendix G of [RFC8610]. The latter provided a number of
useful extensions to the initial diagnostic notation that was
originally defined in Section 6 of [RFC7049]. Section 8 of RFC 8949
[STD94] and Appendix G of [RFC8610] have collectively been called
"Extended Diagnostic Notation" (EDN), now simplified as "Concise
Diagnostic Notation" (CDN) giving the present document its name.
After introductory material, Section 3 illustrates the concept of
application-oriented extension literals by defining the "dt", "ip",
"hash", and "cri" extensions. Section 4 defines mechanisms for
dealing with unknown application-oriented literals and deliberately
elided information. Section 5 gives the formal syntax of CDN in
ABNF, with explanations for some features of and additions to this
syntax, as an overall grammar (Section 5.1) and specific grammars for
the content of app-string and byte-string literals (Section 5.2).
This is followed by the conventional sections for IANA Considerations
(6), Security considerations (7), and References (8.1, 8.2). An
informational comparison of CDN with CDDL follows in Appendix A.
1.2. Terminology and Conventions
Section 8 of RFC 8949 [STD94] defines the original CBOR diagnostic
notation, and Appendix G of [RFC8610] supplies a number of extensions
to the diagnostic notation that form the basis for what is now the
Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN). The diagnostic notation
extensions include popular features such as embedded CBOR (encoded
CBOR data items in byte strings) and comments. A simple diagnostic
notation extension that enables representing CBOR sequences was added
in Section 4.2 of [RFC8742]. As diagnostic notation is not used in
the kind of interchange situations where backward compatibility would
pose a significant obstacle, there is little point in not using these
extensions; as at least some elements of the extended form are now
near-universally used, the terms "diagnostic notation" and "extended
diagnostic notation" have become synonyms in the context of CBOR,
with "concise diagnostic notation" (CDN) now the preferred synonym,
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
hinting at knowledge of this updated specification.
In a similar vein, the term "ABNF" in this document refers to the
language defined in [STD68] as extended in [RFC7405], where the
"characters" of Section 2.3 of RFC 5234 [STD68] are Unicode scalar
values. Where names for ABNF rules are used in the text, they are
shown in typewriter font (not distinguishable in the plaintext
rendition of this document). Brief snippets of grammar may also be
given in the text as I-Regexp regular expressions [RFC9485].
The term "CDDL" (Concise Data Definition Language) refers to the data
definition language defined in [RFC8610] and its registered
extensions (such as those documented in [RFC9165], [RFC9741], and
[RFC9682]). Additional information about the relationship between
the two languages CDN and CDDL is captured in Appendix A.
Examples sometimes need to be quoted in the text, in particular in
cases where the typewriter font used for example text cannot be
distinguished in the plaintext rendition of this document. ASCII
quotes, however, are already taken: true, "true", 'true', and `true`
are all different literals in CDN and should not be confused.
Therefore, a different quoting convention as in »true« or »"true"« is
used for examples in the text where this is needed to remain
unambiguous.
Superscript notation denotes exponentiation. For example, 2 to the
power of 64+1 is notated: 2^(64+1). In the plain-text rendition of
this specification, superscript notation is not available and
exponentiation is therefore rendered by the surrogate notation seen
here in the plain-text rendition.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[BCP14] (RFC2119) (RFC8174) when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
1.3. (Non-)Objectives of this Document
Section 8 of RFC 8949 [STD94] states the objective of defining a
common human-readable diagnostic notation with CBOR. In particular,
it states:
| All actual interchange always happens in the binary format.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
1.3.1. For Humans
One important application of CDN is the notation of CBOR data for
humans: in specifications, on whiteboards, and for entering test
data. A number of features, such as comments inside prefixed string
literals, are mainly useful for people-to-people communication via
CDN. Programs also often output CDN for diagnostic purposes, such as
in error messages or to enable comparison (including generation of
diffs via tools) with test data.
1.3.2. Determinism?
For comparison with test data, it is often useful if different
implementations generate the same (or similar) output for the same
CBOR data items. This is comparable to the objectives of
deterministic serialization for CBOR data items themselves
(Section 4.2 of RFC 8949 [STD94]). However, there are even more
representation variants in CDN than in binary CBOR, and there is
little point in specifically endorsing a single variant as
"deterministic" when other variants may be more useful for human
understanding, e.g., the << >> notation as opposed to h''; a CDN
generator may have quite a few options that control what presentation
variant is most desirable for the application that it is being used
for.
Because of this, a deterministic representation is not defined for
CDN, and there is no expectation for "roundtripping" from CDN to CBOR
and back, i.e., for an ability to convert CDN to binary CBOR and back
to CDN while achieving exactly the same result as the original input
CDN — the original CDN possibly was created by humans or by a
different CDN generator.
1.3.3. Basic Output Format
However, there is a certain expectation that CDN generators can be
configured to some basic output format, which:
* looks like JSON where that is possible;
* inserts encoding indicators, if any, only where the binary form
differs from Preferred Serialization (Section 4.1 of RFC 8949
[STD94]);
* uses hexadecimal representation (h'') for byte strings, not b64''
or embedded CBOR (<<>>);
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
* does not generate elaborate blank space (newlines, indentation)
for pretty-printing, but does use common blank spaces such as
after , and :.
CDN generators may provide configuration to consistently select
either the unescaped (directly readable) or an escaped (ASCII
equivalent) form of characters in string literals; the latter allows
CDN to be used when the diagnostic value of fully escaped characters
may be desired or in environments where non-ASCII characters may not
enjoy full data transparency. Similar to JSON, CDN is designed to
allow a simple tool to convert any CDN (including CDN with
application extensions unknown to the tool) into fully escaped
(printable ASCII and newlines only) form, as well as to inversely
recover unescaped characters for all escapes where this is possible
or for certain subsets of the characters (such as Unicode categories
L, M, N, P, S, plus Zs or just ASCII space).
Additional features such as ensuring deterministic map ordering
(Section 4.2 of RFC 8949 [STD94]) on output, or even deviating from
the basic configuration in some systematic way, can further assist in
comparing test data. Information obtained from a CDDL model can help
in choosing application-oriented literals or specific string
representations such as embedded CBOR or b64'' in the appropriate
places.
2. Overview over Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN)
CBOR is a binary interchange format. To facilitate documentation and
debugging, and in particular to facilitate communication between
entities cooperating in debugging, this document defines a simple
human-readable diagnostic notation. All actual interchange always
happens in the binary format.
Note that diagnostic notation truly was designed as a diagnostic
format; it originally was not meant to be parsed. Therefore, no
formal definition (as in ABNF) was given in the original documents.
Recognizing that formal grammars can aid interoperation of tools and
usability of documents that employ CDN, Section 5 now provides ABNF
definitions.
CDN is a true superset of JSON as it is defined in [STD90] in
conjunction with [RFC7493] (that is, any interoperable [RFC7493] JSON
text also is a CDN text), extending it both to cover the greater
expressiveness of CBOR and to increase its usability.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
CDN borrows the JSON syntax for numbers (integer and floating-point,
Section 2.4), certain simple values (Section 2.8), UTF-8 [STD63] text
strings, arrays, and maps (maps are called objects in JSON; the
diagnostic notation extends JSON here by allowing any data item in
the map key position).
As CDN is used for truly diagnostic purposes, its implementations MAY
support generation and possibly ingestion of CDN for CBOR data items
that are well-formed but not valid. It is RECOMMENDED that an
implementation enables such usage only explicitly by configuration
(such as an API or CLI flag). Validity of CBOR data items is
discussed in Section 5.3 of RFC 8949 [STD94], with basic validity
discussed in Section 5.3.1 of RFC 8949 [STD94], and tag validity
discussed in Section 5.3.2 of RFC 8949 [STD94]. Tag validity is more
likely a subject for individual application-oriented extensions,
while the two cases of basic validity (for text strings and for maps)
are addressed in Sections 2.5.7 and 2.6.3 under the heading of
_validity_.
The rest of this section provides an overview over specific features
of CDN, starting with certain common syntactical features and then
going through kinds of CBOR data items roughly in the order of CBOR
major types. Any additional detailed syntax discussion needed has
been deferred to Section 5.1.
Additional information about implementation and use of CDN is
continuously being collected by the community in [CDN-WIKI].
2.1. Application-Oriented Extension Literals
CDN provides _literals_ that represent CBOR data items textually.
Many of the forms of literals provided are predefined by this
document, but it also defines an extension point that enables
defining additional _application-oriented extension literals_, or
_extension literals_ for short.
Extension literals start with a _prefix_ that identifies the
application-oriented extension, immediately followed by a sequence
literal (Section 2.5.6) or a single-quoted or raw string literal
(Section 2.5). The latter form uses its string literal as a
shorthand form for a sequence literal representing a sequence with
exactly that one text string data item.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
| This notation is generalized from Section 8 of RFC 8949
| [STD94], which provides for notating byte strings in a number
| of [RFC4648] base encodings, where the encoded text is enclosed
| in single quotes, prefixed by a prefix (»h« for base16, »b32«
| for base32, »h32« for base32hex, »b64« for base64 or
| base64url).
|
| This syntax can be thought to establish a name space, with the
| names "h", "b32", "h32", and "b64" taken, but other names being
| unallocated. The present specification allows registering
| additional names for this namespace, which it calls
| _application-extension identifiers_.
More precisely, an _application-extension identifier_ is a registered
name consisting of a lowercase ASCII letter ([a-z]) and zero or more
additional ASCII characters that are either lowercase letters,
digits, or hyphens ([a-z0-9-]). »false«, »true«, »null«, and
»undefined« cannot be used as such identifiers and are reserved.
Application-extension identifiers are registered in the "Application-
Extension Identifiers" registry (Section 6.1).
An application-extension (such as dt) MAY also define the meaning of
one additional prefix derived from its application-extension
identifier by replacing each lowercase character by its uppercase
counterpart (such as DT). As a convention, using the all-uppercase
variant implies making use of a CBOR tag appropriate for this
application-oriented extension (such as tag number 1 for DT, where in
contrast the prefix dt stands for the unwrapped tag content).
In summary, an application-extension identifier gives rise to one or
two application-extension prefixes, one that is lexically identical
to the identifier (i.e., all lowercase), and potentially another one
that is an all-uppercase variation of it. In addition to specifying
which of these two variations exhibits which specific semantics, the
application extension specifies what input the extension takes.
When the prefix is used immediately in front of a single-quoted or a
raw string, the input takes the form of a single text string CBOR
data item. When used immediately in front of a sequence literal, the
input is a CBOR sequence of elements of the sequence literal as
input. The application extension can provide behavior that depends
on the number of items supplied as input to it and their data types;
it cannot distinguish between its prefix being used with a single-
quoted string, a raw string, or a CBOR sequence composed of a single
text string data item (as illustrated for instance in Tables 4, 5,
and 6).
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
This specification defines a number of generally applicable
application-oriented extensions (Section 3), both to motivate making
these extensions generally available, and to illustrate the concept.
Of these, the application-oriented extensions h, b64, dt and ip are
intended to be mandatory to implement. (As mentioned, for simplicity
we use the term "application-oriented extensions" for the mechanism
discussed in this section even if it is used to describe a part of
base CDN.)
2.2. Comments
For presentation to humans, CDN text may benefit from comments. JSON
famously does not provide for comments, and the original diagnostic
notation in Section 6 of [RFC7049] inherited this property.
CDN now provides two comment syntaxes, which can be used where the
syntax allows blank space (outside of constructs such as numbers,
string literals, etc.):
* inline comments, delimited by slashes ("/") or by C-style "/*" and
"*/":
In a position that allows blank space, each of the following is
considered blank space (and thus effectively a comment):
- any text that starts with a slash followed by a character that
is not a star or a slash, up to another slash, or
- any text that starts with "/*" up to and including the next
following "*/"
* end-of-line comments, delimited by "#" or "//" and an end of line
(LINE FEED, U+000A):
In a position that allows blank space, any text starting with "#"
or "//" and ending with and including the end of the line is
considered blank space (and thus effectively a comment).
Comments can be used to annotate a CBOR structure as in:
/grasp-message/ [/M_DISCOVERY/ 1, /session-id/ 10584416,
/objective/ [/objective-name/ "opsonize",
/D, N, S/ 7, /loop-count/ 105]]
This reduces to [1, 10584416, ["opsonize", 7, 105]].
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
Another example, combining the use of inline and end-of-line
comments:
{
/kty/ 1 : 4, # Symmetric
/alg/ 3 : 5, # HMAC 256-256
/k/ -1 : h'6684523ab17337f173500e5728c628547cb37df
e68449c65f885d1b73b49eae1'
}
This reduces to {1: 4, 3: 5, -1:
h'6684523AB17337F173500E5728C628547CB37DFE68449C65F885D1B73B49EAE1'}.
| Note that application-oriented extensions can define their own
| internal comment syntaxes for text inside strings, which may or
| may not mimic the overall comment syntax of CDN. The h''
| syntax (Section 5.2.1), which the framework for application-
| oriented extensions was designed to include as an instance,
| provides an equivalent to the overall comment syntax inside its
| text strings. Similarly, b64'' (Section 5.2.2) provides a
| subset of that limited to "#" end-of-line comments (the slash
| character "/" is used in the alphabet in classic base64
| encoding). None of the other application-oriented extensions
| supplied in this specification provides for such a kind of
| internal comment syntax.
2.2.1. Discussion
As a not quite backward compatible change, this specification
restricts slash-delimited comments that were allowed in Appendix G.6
of [RFC8610] in two ways:
* Inline comments now longer can be empty: The construct "//" that
was an empty comment in Appendix G.6 of [RFC8610] is now used
instead to introduce an end-of-line comment. (Note that "//"
still can be used in what is visually "within" a slash-delimited
comment; its first slash actually ends the current comment and the
second slash starts a new one.)
* CDN now enables the use of C-style inline comments: for instance,
"/*foo/" was a complete comment in Appendix G.6 of [RFC8610] and
now is the beginning of a C-style comment that goes on up to a
"*/".
As an example, the introduction of C-style inline comments enables a
comment explaining a COSE algorithm identifier, as in
4 /* HMAC 256/64 */
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
instead of the conventional, but often less familiar
4 / HMAC 256//64 /
2.3. Encoding Indicators
Sometimes it is useful to indicate in the diagnostic notation which
of several alternative representations were actually used; for
example, a data item written »1.5« by a diagnostic decoder might have
been encoded as a half-, single-, or double-precision float.
Encoding indicators are always optional: CDN is usually used to
describe CBOR data items at the data model level. For some
diagnostic purposes, it is useful to represent the choice of a
serialization variation by including encoding indicators.
Implementations of CDN generally do not need to provide this
functionality in full; if they do, they can be called "diagnostic
implementations". To be able to process CDN that contains encoding
indicators, a CDN-consuming implementation MUST accept them (i.e.,
process or ignore the presence or absence of each encoding
indicator). (Ignoring them could be compared to a generic CBOR
decoder ignoring the presence of the serialization variants it
encounters.) It is RECOMMENDED to by default provide a warning for
each encoding indicator value that is encountered but not further
processed.
When creating CDN as input for a diagnostic CBOR encoder in order to
obtain specific encoding choices, encoding indicators may be placed
manually or by the software generating the CDN. Where no encoding
indicator is placed, a diagnostic CBOR encoder is expected to
generate Preferred Serialization (Section 4.1 of RFC 8949 [STD94])
with definite length encoding only. Similarly, when using CDN as
output for a diagnostic CBOR decoder, a basic diagnostic
configuration of the tool is expected to provide encoding indicators
only in places where the CBOR input did not use Preferred
Serialization with definite length encoding (see also Section 1.3.3).
Diagnostic implementations of CDN that process encoding indicators as
discussed here are expected to document their diagnostic behavior and
the processing options that can be selected.
2.3.1. Syntax, Semantics, Examples
Encoding indicators start with an underscore and comprise all
immediately following characters that are alphanumeric or underscore.
For example, _ or _3. Encoding indicators can be ignored by anyone
not interested in this information.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
Encoding indicators are placed immediately to the right of the data
item or of a syntactic feature that can stand for the data item the
encoding of which the encoding indicator is controlling. Table 1
provides examples for data items with encoding indicators used with
various kinds of data items.
+====+=====================+
| mt | examples |
+====+=====================+
| 0 | 1_1, 0x4711_3 |
+----+---------------------+
| 1 | -1_1 |
+----+---------------------+
| 2 | 'A'_1 |
+----+---------------------+
| 3 | "A"_1 |
+----+---------------------+
| 4 | [_1 "bar"] |
+----+---------------------+
| 5 | {_1 "bar": 1} |
+----+---------------------+
| 6 | 1_1(4711) |
+----+---------------------+
| 7 | 1.5_2, 0x4711p+03_3 |
+----+---------------------+
Table 1: Examples of
Encoding Indicators for
Different Data Items (mt
= major type)
(In the following, an abbreviation of the form ai=nn gives nn as the
numeric value of the field _additional information_, the low-order 5
bits of the initial byte: see Section 3 of RFC 8949 [STD94]. This
field is used in encoding the "argument", i.e., the value, tag, or
length; ai=0 to ai=23 mean that the value of the ai field immediately
_is_ the argument, ai=24 to ai=27 mean that the argument is carried
in 2^(ai-24) (1, 2, 4, or 8) additional bytes, and ai=31 means that
indefinite length encoding is used.)
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
An underscore followed by a decimal digit n indicates that the
preceding item (or, for arrays and maps, the item starting with the
preceding bracket or brace) was or is to be encoded with an
additional information value of ai=24+n. For example, 1.5_1 is a
half-precision floating-point number (2^1 = 2 additional bytes or 16
bits), while 1.5_3 is encoded as double precision (2^3 = 8 additional
bytes or 64 bits). For a tool consuming CDN in a diagnostic mode,
encountering an encoding indicator that does not provide enough space
to correctly encode the unchanged data item given is an error; there
is no truncation or rounding that would change the data item encoded.
| Truncation or rounding semantics imply performing changes at
| the data model level, which is outside the scope of encoding
| indicators. Such operations can be provided by application
| extensions.
The encoding indicator _ (an underscore on its own) is used to
indicate indefinite length encoding. Indefinite length encoding uses
ai=31, which could have been indicated by _7, which is therefore not
used and marked as reserved (as are _4, _5, and _6, which would stand
for ai=28 to ai=30, values currently not in use in CBOR; these
encoding indicators will be available if and when CBOR is extended to
make use of them).
Note that the encoding indicator _ is only available behind the
opening brace/bracket for map and array (Section 2.6.2): strings have
a special syntax streamstring for indefinite length encoding except
for the special cases ''_ and ""_ (Section 2.5.4).
The encoding indicators _0 to _3 can be used to indicate ai=24 to
ai=27, respectively; they therefore stand for 1, 2, 4, and 8 bytes of
additional information (ai) following the initial byte in the head of
the data item.
Surprisingly, Section 8.1 of RFC 8949 [STD94] does not address ai=0
to ai=23 — the assumption seems to have been that Preferred
Serialization (Section 4.1 of RFC 8949 [STD94]) will be used when
converting CBOR diagnostic notation to an encoded CBOR data item, so
leaving out the encoding indicator for a data item with a Preferred
Serialization will implicitly use ai=0 to ai=23 if that is possible.
The present specification allows making this explicit:
_i ("immediate") stands for encoding with ai=0 to ai=23, i.e., it
indicates that the argument is encoded directly in the initial byte
of the CBOR item.
Encoding indicators are an extension point for CDN; Section 6.2
defines a registry for additional values.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
Specific forms of encoding indicators are discussed in further detail
in Section 2.5.4 for indefinite length strings and in Section 2.6.2
for arrays and maps.
2.4. Numbers
In addition to JSON's decimal number literals, CDN provides
hexadecimal, octal, and binary number literals in the usual
C-language notation (octal with 0o prefix present only).
Numbers composed only of digits (of the respective base) are
interpreted as CBOR integers (major type 0/1, or where the number
cannot be represented in this way, major type 6 with tag 2/3). A
leading "+" sign is a no-op, and a leading "-" sign inverts the sign
of the number. So 0, 000, +0 all represent the same integer zero, as
does -0. Similarly, 1, 001, +1 and +0001 all stand for the same
integer one, and -1 and -0001 both designate the same integer minus
one.
Using a decimal point (.) and/or an exponent (e for decimal, p for
hexadecimal) turns the number into a floating point number (major
type 7) instead, irrespective of whether it is an integral number
mathematically. Note that, in floating point numbers, 0.0 is not the
same number as -0.0, even if they are mathematically equal.
In Table 2, all the items on a row are the same number (also shown in
CBOR, hexadecimally), but they are distinct from items in a different
row.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
+========================================+===================+
| CDN | CBOR hex |
+========================================+===================+
| 4711, 0x1267, 0o11147, 0b1001001100111 | 19 1267 # uint |
+----------------------------------------+-------------------+
| 1.5, 0.15e1, 15e-1, 0x1.8p0, 0x18p-4 | F9 3E00 # float16 |
+----------------------------------------+-------------------+
| 0, +0, -0 | 00 # uint |
+----------------------------------------+-------------------+
| 0.0, +0.0 | F9 0000 # float16 |
+----------------------------------------+-------------------+
| -0.0 | F9 8000 # float16 |
+----------------------------------------+-------------------+
| Infinity | F9 7C00 # float16 |
+----------------------------------------+-------------------+
| -Infinity | F9 FC00 # float16 |
+----------------------------------------+-------------------+
| NaN | F9 7E00 # float16 |
+----------------------------------------+-------------------+
Table 2: Example Sets of Equivalent Notations for Some Numbers
The non-finite floating-point values Infinity, -Infinity, and NaN are
written exactly as in this sentence (this is also a way they can be
written in JavaScript, although JSON does not allow them). NaN in
CDN stands for the NaN value with a zero sign bit and an all-zero
significand except for a set quiet bit; this is represented as F9 7E
00 in CBOR Preferred Serialization. Table 3 shows how the floating
point numbers 1.1, 1.5 and these three values are encoded in
preferred serialization and when encoding indicators are given.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
+========================+=====================+
| CDN | CBOR hex |
+========================+=====================+
| 1.1 | fb 3ff199999999999a |
+------------------------+---------------------+
| 1.1_1, 1.1_2 | (error) |
+------------------------+---------------------+
| 1.1_3 | fb 3ff199999999999a |
+------------------------+---------------------+
| 1.5, 1.5_1 | f9 3e00 |
+------------------------+---------------------+
| 1.5_2 | fa 3fc00000 |
+------------------------+---------------------+
| 1.5_3 | fb 3ff8000000000000 |
+------------------------+---------------------+
| Infinity, Infinity_1 | f9 7c00 |
+------------------------+---------------------+
| Infinity_2 | fa 7f800000 |
+------------------------+---------------------+
| Infinity_3 | fb 7ff0000000000000 |
+------------------------+---------------------+
| -Infinity, -Infinity_1 | f9 fc00 |
+------------------------+---------------------+
| -Infinity_2 | fa ff800000 |
+------------------------+---------------------+
| -Infinity_3 | fb fff0000000000000 |
+------------------------+---------------------+
| NaN, NaN_1 | f9 7e00 |
+------------------------+---------------------+
| NaN_2 | fa 7fc00000 |
+------------------------+---------------------+
| NaN_3 | fb 7ff8000000000000 |
+------------------------+---------------------+
Table 3: Encoding indicators on floating
point values
See Section 5.1, Paragraph 7, Item 3 for additional details of the
CDN number syntax.
(Note that literals for further number formats, e.g., for
representing rational numbers as fractions, or for other NaN values
than the one called NaN, can be added as application-oriented
literals. Background information beyond that in [STD94] about the
representation of numbers in CBOR can be found in the informational
document [I-D.bormann-cbor-numbers].)
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
2.5. Strings
CBOR distinguishes two kinds of strings: text strings (the bytes in
the string constitute UTF-8 [STD63] text, major type 3), and byte
strings (CBOR does not further characterize the bytes that constitute
the string, major type 2).
CDN has three direct (unprefixed) notations for strings: double-
quoted and raw strings for (UTF-8) text strings, and single-quoted
strings for byte strings. The latter are useful for byte strings
carrying bytes that can be meaningfully notated as UTF-8 text
(Section 2.5.2).
Many strings are best notated as extension literals, which may
provide detailed access to the bits within those bytes (see
Section 2.5.5). An extension literal can be constructed out of an
application-extension prefix and a single-quoted string, a raw
string, or a sequence literal.
2.5.1. Double-Quoted String Literals
CDN enables notating text strings in a form compatible to that of
notating text strings in JSON (i.e., as a double-quoted string
literal), with a number of usability extensions. In JSON, no control
characters are allowed to occur directly in text string literals; if
needed, they can be specified using escapes such as \t or \r. In
CDN, string literals additionally can contain newlines (LINEFEED
U+000A), which are copied into the resulting string like other
characters in the string literal. To deal with variability in
platform presentation of newlines, any carriage return characters
(U+000D) that may be present in the CDN string literal are not copied
into the resulting string (see Section 5.1, Paragraph 7, Item 2). No
other control characters can occur directly in a string literal, and
the handling of escaped characters (\r etc.) is as in JSON.
JSON's escape scheme for characters that are not on Unicode's basic
multilingual plane (BMP) is cumbersome (see Section 7 of RFC 8259
[STD90]). CDN keeps it, but also adds the syntax \u{NNN} where NNN
is the Unicode scalar value as a hexadecimal number. This means the
following are equivalent (the first o is escaped as \u{6f} for no
particular reason):
"D\u{6f}mino's \u{1F073} + \u{2318}" # \u{}-escape 3 chars
"Domino's \uD83C\uDC73 + \u2318" # escape JSON-like
"Domino's 🁳 + ⌘" # unescaped
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
2.5.2. Single-Quoted String Literals
Analogously to text string literals delimited by double quotes, CDN
allows the use of single quotes (without a prefix) to express byte
string literals with UTF-8 text; for instance, the following are
equivalent:
'hello world'
h'68656c6c6f20776f726c64'
The escaping rules of JSON strings are applied equivalently for text-
based byte string literals, e.g., \\ stands for a single backslash
and \' stands for a single quote. However, to facilitate parsing, in
single-quoted strings CDN excludes certain escaping mechanisms
available for double-quoted strings:
* \/ is an escape in JSON that is available for double-quoted CDN
text strings as well to ensure all JSON texts are CDN literals.
Since CDN's single-quoted strings do not occur in JSON, this
legacy compatibility feature is not available for them.
* \u-based escapes are not available for characters in the range
from U+0020 through U+007E (essentially, printable ASCII).
Single-quoted string literals can occur unprefixed and stand for the
byte string that encodes its text string value (the "content"), or be
prefixed by what looks like an application-extension prefix (see
Section 2.1).
In a prefixed string literal, the text content of the single-quoted
string literal is not used directly as a byte string, but is further
processed in a way that is defined by the meaning given to the
prefix. Depending on the prefix, the result of that processing can,
but need not be, a byte string value.
Prefixed string literals (whether single-quoted after the prefix or a
raw string (Section 2.5.3)) are used both for base-encoded byte
string literals (see Section 2.5.5) and for application-oriented
extension literals (see Section 2.1, called app-string). (Additional
kinds of base-encoded string literals can be defined as application-
oriented extension literals by registering their prefixes; there is
no fundamental difference between the two predefined base-encoded
string literal prefixes (h, b64) and any such potential future
extension literal prefixes; for simplicity of expression, both cases
are referred to as "extension literals".)
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
2.5.3. Raw String Literals
Both double-quoted and single-quoted string literals handle
backslashes in a special way. For string data items that employ
backslashes themselves, possibly with additional layers of processing
giving this "escaping" mechanism specific application semantics, this
can lead to an exponential duplication of backslashes that has
informally been described as "quoting hell".
CDN therefore also allows text strings to be notated as raw string
literals, which do not perform backslash processing. Instead, data
transparency is provided by enclosing them in starting and ending
delimiters built as a sequence of one or more backquote (»`«, U+0060
GRAVE ACCENT) characters.
For example, the I-Regexp »[^ \t\n\r"'`]«, a character class that
excludes blank space and quoting characters, can be notated as:
``[^ \t\n\r"'`]``
instead of
"[^ \\t\\n\\r\"'`]"
By using more backquotes for the outer delimiters than the longest
sequence of backquotes that can be found in the string, internal
backquotes do not prematurely end the string literal. An example for
a raw string that contains a double backquote and therefore is
notated starting and ending with a triple backquote:
```To emulate typographic quotes, sometimes duplicate backward and
forward single quotes are used, as in ``text.''
```
This mechanism is easy to use for the large majority of cases.
However:
* Raw strings cannot be used for empty string data items, which
therefore need to be notated using double- or single-quoted
strings. (Obviously, there is no need to escape the content of
empty strings, so this should not be a problem.)
* Without additional rules, raw strings could not be used for string
data items that start or end with backquotes, as these would
amalgamate with the start and end delimiters.
To address the latter cases, two additional rules are added:
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
* After processing the backquotes used as delimiters, any single
newline at the start of a raw string is removed. As a result:
```a```
can also be expressed as
```
a```
In addition to enabling leading backquotes in raw strings, this
can be very useful for documentation strings etc.
This rule also allows notating »``text''« as:
```
``text''```
* An ending delimiter with more backquotes than were used in the
starting delimiter contributes the superfluous ones to the string.
This allows notating »a = ``foo``« as:
```a = ``foo`````
(The examples given here are minimal in that they show how the
additional rules work; more complex examples would be necessary to
provide additional motivation why this is a good case to handle.)
See Section 5.1 for a more formal approach to defining these rules.
2.5.4. Encoding Indicators of Strings
For indefinite length encoding, strings (byte and text strings) have
a special syntax streamstring. This is used (except for the special
cases ''_ and ""_ below) to notate their detailed composition into
individual "chunks" (Section 3.2.3 of RFC 8949 [STD94]), by
representing the individual chunks in sequence within parentheses,
each optionally followed by a comma, with an encoding indicator _
immediately after the opening parenthesis: e.g., (_ h'0123', h'4567')
or (_ "foo", "bar"). The overall type (byte string or text string)
of the string is provided by the types of the individual chunks,
which all need to be of the same type (Section 3.2.3 of RFC 8949
[STD94]).
For an indefinite-length string with no chunks inside, (_ ) would be
ambiguous as to whether a byte string (encoded 5f ff) or a text
string (encoded 7f ff) is meant and is therefore not used. The basic
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
forms ''_ and ""_ can be used instead and are reserved for the case
of no chunks only — not as short forms for the (permitted, but not
really useful) encodings with only empty chunks, which need to be
notated as (_ ''), (_ ""), etc., when it is desired to preserve the
chunk structure.
2.5.5. Base-Encoded Byte String Literals
Besides the unprefixed byte string literals that are analogous to
JSON text string literals, CDN provides extension literals that can
represent byte strings by base-encoding them, typically notated as
prefixed string literals. The application-extension identifier
selects one of the base encodings [RFC4648], without padding. Most
often, the base encoding is enclosed in a single-quoted or raw string
literal, prefixed by »h« for base16 or »b64« for base64 or base64url
(the actual encodings of the latter two have the same meaning where
they overlap, so the string remains unambiguous). For example, the
byte string consisting of the four bytes 12 34 56 78 (given in
hexadecimal here) could be written h'12345678' or b64'EjRWeA' when
using single-quoted string literals, or h`12345678` or b64`EjRWeA`
when using raw string literals.
| (Note that Section 8 of RFC 8949 [STD94] also mentions »b32«
| for base32 and »h32« for base32hex. This has not been
| implemented widely and therefore is not directly included in
| this specification. These and further byte string formats now
| can easily be added back as application-oriented extension
| literals.)
Examples often benefit from some blank space (spaces, line breaks) in
byte strings literals. In certain CDN prefixed byte string literals,
blank space is ignored; for instance, the following are equivalent:
h'48656c6c6f20776f726c64'
h'48 65 6c 6c 6f 20 77 6f 72 6c 64'
h'4 86 56c 6c6f
20776 f726c64'
The internal syntax of prefixed single-quote literals such as h'' and
b64'' can also allow comments as blank space (see Section 2.2).
h'68656c6c6f20776f726c64'
h'68 65 6c /doubled l!/ 6c 6f # hello
20 /space/
77 6f 72 6c 64' /world/
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
Slash characters are part of the base64 classic alphabet (see Table 1
in Section 4 of [RFC4648]), and they therefore need to be in the
b64'' set of characters that contribute to the byte string.
Therefore, only end-of-line comments are available inside b64 byte
string literals.
b64'/base64 not a comment/ but one follows # comment'
h'FDB6AC 7BAE27A2D69CA2699E9EDFDBBADA2779FA25 968C2C'
These two byte string literals stand for the same byte string; the
deliberately confusing base64 content starts with b64'/bas' which is
the same as h'FDB6AC' and ends with b64'lows' which is the same as
h'968C2C'.
2.5.6. CBOR Sequence Literals
In diagnostic notation, a sequence of zero or more CBOR data item
literals can be enclosed in << and >>, optionally prefixed by an
application-extension prefix; this specification speaks of _sequence
literals_. CDN mainly deals with individual data items, not with CBOR
sequences [RFC8742], so the CBOR sequence represented by the sequence
literal needs to be further processed to obtain the value of the
literal.
Prefixed sequence literals refer to the application extension (see
Section 2.1) identified by the prefix and apply the extension to its
sequence content, resulting in a single data item. This data item
may be a string or may not (always) be, depending on the definition
of the application extension.
An unprefixed sequence literal applies CBOR encoding to the data
items in its content, taken as a CBOR sequence. The value of the
literal thus is a byte string with the encoded content; this is
commonly referred to as _embedded CBOR_. For instance, each pair of
columns in the following are equivalent:
<<1>> h'01'
<<1, 2>> h'0102'
<<"hello", null>> h'65 68656c6c6f f6'
<<>> h''
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
2.5.7. Validity of Text Strings
To be valid CBOR, Section 5.3.1 of RFC 8949 [STD94] requires that
text strings are byte sequences in UTF-8 [STD63] form. CDN provides
several ways to construct such byte strings (see Section 5.1,
Paragraph 9, Item 1 for details). These mechanisms might operate on
subsequences that do not themselves constitute UTF-8, e.g., by
building larger sequences out of concatenating the subsequences; for
validity of a text string resulting from these mechanisms it is only
of importance that the result is UTF-8. Double-quoted, single-
quoted, and raw string literals have been defined such that they lead
to byte sequences that are UTF-8: the source language of CDN is UTF-
8, and all escaping mechanisms lead only to adding further UTF-8
characters. Only prefixed string literals, other application-
extensions, or in certain cases concatenation (Section 5.1, Paragraph
9, Item 1) can generate non-UTF-8 byte sequences.
As discussed at the start of Section 2, CDN implementations MAY
support generation and possibly ingestion of CDN for CBOR data items
that are well-formed but not valid; when this is enabled, such
implementations MAY relax the requirement on text strings to be valid
UTF-8.
Note that neither CBOR about its text strings nor CDN about its
source language make any requirements except for conformance to
[STD63]. No additional Unicode processing or validation such as
normalization or checking whether a scalar value is actually assigned
is foreseen by CDN, particularly not any processing that is dependent
on a specific Unicode version. Such processing, if offered, MUST NOT
get in the way of processing the data item represented in CDN (i.e.,
it may be appropriate to issue warnings but not to error out or to
generate output that does not match the input at the UTF-8 level).
2.6. Arrays and Maps
CDN borrows the JSON syntax for arrays and maps. (Maps are called
objects in JSON.)
For maps, CDN extends the JSON syntax by allowing any data item in
the map key position (before the colon).
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
2.6.1. Mandatory Separators, Optional Terminators
JSON requires the use of a comma as a separator character between the
elements of an array as well as between the members (key/value pairs)
of a map. (These commas also were required in the original
diagnostic notation defined in [STD94] and [RFC8610].) The separator
commas are now optional in the places where CDN syntax allows commas;
however, where no comma is used in a separator position, there must
be blank space (composed of at least one space, newline, and/or
comment) instead. (Stylistically, leaving out the commas is more
idiomatic when they occur at line breaks, which provide the blank
space.)
In addition, CDN also allows, but does not require, a trailing comma
before the closing bracket/brace, enabling an easier to maintain
"terminator" style of their use.
In summary, the following eight examples are all equivalent:
[1, 2, 3]
[1, 2, 3,]
[1 2 3]
[1 2 3,]
[1 2, 3]
[1 2, 3,]
[1, 2 3]
[1, 2 3,]
as are
{1: "n", "x": "a"}
{1: "n", "x": "a",}
{1: "n" "x": "a"}
# etc.
As a comma and/or blank/comment is mandatory in a separator position,
»[11]« is unambiguously an array with a single element (the integer
11), different from »[1 1]« or »[1,1]«. As this is a general rule,
»[[] []]« or »[[],[]]« are well-formed CDN, while »[[][]]« is not.
| CDDL's comma separators in the equivalent contexts (CDDL
| groups) are entirely optional (and actually are terminators,
| which together with their optionality allows them to be used
| like separators as well, or even not at all). In summary,
| comma use is now aligned between CDN and CDDL, in a fully
| backward compatible way. (CDDL does allow the stylistically
| questionable »a = [[][]]«, though.)
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
2.6.2. Encoding Indicators of Arrays and Maps
A single underscore can be written after the opening brace of a map
or the opening bracket of an array to indicate that the data item was
represented in indefinite-length format. For example, [_ 1, 2]
contains an indicator that an indefinite-length representation was
used to represent the data item [1, 2].
At the same position, encoding indicators for specifying the size of
the array or map head for definite-length format can be used instead,
specifically _i or _0 to _3. For example, [_0 false, true] can be
used to specify the encoding of the array [false, true] as 98 02 f4
f5.
2.6.3. Validity of Maps
As discussed at the start of Section 2, CDN implementations MAY
support generation and possibly ingestion of CDN for CBOR data items
that are well-formed but not valid (Section 5.3 of RFC 8949 [STD94]).
For maps, this is relevant for map keys that occur more than once, as
in this CDN that is not representing a valid CBOR data item:
{1: "to", 1: "fro"}
2.7. Tags
A tag is written as a decimal unsigned integer (no leading zeros
except for the actual number zero, i.e., 0|[1-9][0-9]*) for the tag
number, followed by the tag content in parentheses; for instance, a
date in the format specified by RFC 3339 (ISO 8601) could be notated
as:
0("2013-03-21T20:04:00Z")
or the equivalent epoch-based time as the following:
1(1363896240)
The tag number can be followed by an encoding indicator giving the
encoding of the tag head. For example, a diagnostic implementation
encodes:
1_1(1363896240)
...(assuming Preferred Serialization for the tag content) as:
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
d9 0001 # tag(1)
1a 514b67b0 # unsigned(1363896240)
2.8. Simple values
CDN uses JSON syntax for the simple values True (»true«), False
(»false«), and Null (»null«). Undefined is written »undefined« as in
JavaScript.
These and all other simple values can be given as "simple()" with the
appropriate decimal unsigned integer (0|[1-9][0-9]*) in the
parentheses. For example, »simple(42)« indicates major type 7, value
42, and »simple(20)« indicates »false«.
3. Application-Oriented Extension Literals
This document extends the syntax used in diagnostic notation to also
enable application-oriented extensions. This section defines a
number of application-oriented extensions.
3.1. The "dt" Extension
The application-extension identifier "dt" is used to notate a date/
time literal that can be used as an Epoch-Based Date/Time as per
Section 3.4.2 of RFC 8949 [STD94].
The content of the literal is a single Standard Date/Time String as
per Section 3.4.1 of RFC 8949 [STD94], as a text or byte string.
The value of the literal is a number representing the result of a
conversion of the given Standard Date/Time String to an Epoch-Based
Date/Time. If fractional seconds are given in the text (production
time-secfrac in Figure 5), the value is a floating-point number; the
value is an integer number otherwise. In the all-uppercase variant
of the app-prefix, the value is enclosed in a tag number 1.
Each row of Table 4 shows an example of "dt" notation and equivalent
notation not using an application-extension identifier.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
+================================+==============+
| dt literal | plain CDN |
+================================+==============+
| dt'1969-07-21T02:56:16Z' | -14159024 |
+--------------------------------+--------------+
| dt'1969-07-21T02:56:16.0Z' | -14159024.0 |
+--------------------------------+--------------+
| dt'1969-07-21T02:56:16.5Z' | -14159023.5 |
+--------------------------------+--------------+
| dt`1969-07-21T02:56:16.5Z` | -14159023.5 |
+--------------------------------+--------------+
| dt<<'1969-07-21T02:56:16.5Z'>> | -14159023.5 |
+--------------------------------+--------------+
| dt<<"1969-07-21T02:56:16.5Z">> | -14159023.5 |
+--------------------------------+--------------+
| dt<<`1969-07-21T02:56:16.5Z`>> | -14159023.5 |
+--------------------------------+--------------+
| DT'1969-07-21T02:56:16Z' | 1(-14159024) |
+--------------------------------+--------------+
Table 4: dt and DT literals vs. plain CDN
See Section 5.2.3 for an ABNF definition for the text string input of
dt literals.
3.2. The "ip" Extension
The application-extension identifier "ip" is used to notate an IP
address literal that can be used as an IP address as per Section 3 of
[RFC9164].
The input of the literal is a single text string representing an
IPv4address or IPv6address as per Section 3.2.2 of [RFC3986].
With the lowercase app-string prefix ip, the value of the literal is
a byte string representing the binary IP address. With the uppercase
app-string prefix IP, the literal is such a byte string tagged with
tag number 54, if an IPv6address is used, or tag number 52, if an
IPv4address is used.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
As an additional case, the uppercase app-string prefix IP can be used
with an IP address prefix such as 2001:db8::/56 or 192.0.2.0/24, with
the equivalent tag as its value. (Note that [RFC9164]
representations of address prefixes need to implement the truncation
of the address byte string as described in Section 4.2 of [RFC9164];
see example below.) For completeness, the lowercase variant
ip'2001:db8::/56' or ip'192.0.2.0/24' stands for an unwrapped
[56,h'20010db8'] or [24,h'c00002']; however, in this case the
information on whether an address is IPv4 or IPv6 often needs to come
from the context.
Note that this application-extension provides no direct
representation of the "Interface format" defined in Section 3.1.3 of
[RFC9164], an address combined with an optional prefix length and an
optional zone identifier, and therefore no way to reference a zone
identifier at all. (If needed, this format can be put together by
building their structures explicitly, e.g., an interface format
without a zone identifier can be represented as in
52([ip'192.0.2.42',24]), or an interface format with zone identifier
42 as in 54([ip'fe80::0202:02ff:ffff:fe03:0303',64,42]).)
Each row of Table 5 shows an example of "ip" notation and equivalent
notation not using an application-extension identifier.
+====================+=========================================+
| ip literal | plain CDN |
+====================+=========================================+
| ip'192.0.2.42' | h'c000022a' |
+--------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| ip<<'192.0.2.42'>> | h'c000022a' |
+--------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| IP'192.0.2.42' | 52(h'c000022a') |
+--------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| IP'192.0.2.0/24' | 52([24,h'c00002']) |
+--------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| ip'2001:db8::42' | h'20010db8000000000000000000000042' |
+--------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| IP'2001:db8::42' | 54(h'20010db8000000000000000000000042') |
+--------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| IP'2001:db8::/64' | 54([64,h'20010db8']) |
+--------------------+-----------------------------------------+
Table 5: ip and IP literals vs. plain CDN
See Section 5.2.4 for an ABNF definition for the content of ip
literals.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
3.3. The "hash" Extension
The application-extension identifier "hash" is used to notate the
input to a cryptographic hash function as well as identify such a
hash function. The result is a byte string that represents the
output of that hash function.
The input of the literal is a (text or byte) string, optionally
followed by either an integer or a text string that identifies the
hash function in the COSE Algorithms registry of the CBOR Object
Signing and Encryption (COSE) registry group [IANA.cose], either by
the identifier (value: integer or string), or, if no algorithm is
registered with this value, by its name used in the registry. If the
second item is not given, the default algorithm used is -16 ("SHA-
256").
No uppercase variant prefix is defined for the application-extension
identifier "hash".
+===============+====================================+
| hash literal | plain CDN |
+===============+====================================+
| hash<<'foo'>> | h'2C26B46B68FFC68FF99B453C1D304134 |
| | 13422D706483BFA0F98A5E886266E7AE' |
+---------------+------------------------------------+
| hash'foo' | h'2C26B46B68FFC68FF99B453C1D304134 |
| | 13422D706483BFA0F98A5E886266E7AE' |
+---------------+------------------------------------+
| hash<<'foo', | h'2C26B46B68FFC68FF99B453C1D304134 |
| -16>> | 13422D706483BFA0F98A5E886266E7AE' |
+---------------+------------------------------------+
| hash<<'foo', | h'2C26B46B68FFC68FF99B453C1D304134 |
| "SHA-256">> | 13422D706483BFA0F98A5E886266E7AE' |
+---------------+------------------------------------+
| hash<<'foo', | h'F7FBBA6E0636F890E56FBBF3283E524C |
| -44>> | 6FA3204AE298382D624741D0DC663832 |
| | 6E282C41BE5E4254D8820772C5518A2C |
| | 5A8C0C7F7EDA19594A7EB539453E1ED7' |
+---------------+------------------------------------+
| hash<<'foo', | h'F7FBBA6E0636F890E56FBBF3283E524C |
| "SHA-512">> | 6FA3204AE298382D624741D0DC663832 |
| | 6E282C41BE5E4254D8820772C5518A2C |
| | 5A8C0C7F7EDA19594A7EB539453E1ED7' |
+---------------+------------------------------------+
Table 6: hash literals vs. plain CDN
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
3.4. The "cri" Extension
The application-extension identifier "cri" is used to notate a CDN
literal for a CRI reference as defined in [I-D.ietf-core-href].
The input of the literal is a URI Reference as per [RFC3986] or an
IRI Reference as per [RFC3987].
The value of the literal is a CRI reference that can be converted to
the text of the literal using the procedure of Section 6.1 of
[I-D.ietf-core-href]. Note that there may be more than one CRI
reference that can be converted to the URI/IRI reference given;
implementations are expected to favor the simplest variant available
and make non-surprising choices otherwise. In the all-uppercase
variant of the app-prefix, the value is enclosed in a tag number 99.
As an example, the CDN
cri'https://example.com/bottarga/shaved'
CRI'https://example.com/bottarga/shaved'
is equivalent to
[-4, ["example", "com"], ["bottarga", "shaved"]]
99([-4, ["example", "com"], ["bottarga", "shaved"]])
See Section 5.2.5 for an ABNF definition for the content of cri
literals.
4. Stand-in Representations in Binary CBOR
In some cases, a CDN consumer cannot construct actual CBOR items that
represent the CBOR data intended for eventual interchange. This
document defines a stand-in representation for two such cases:
* The CDN consumer does not know (or does not implement) an
application-extension identifier used in the CDN document
(Section 4.1) but wants to preserve the information for a later
processor.
* The generator of some CDN intended for human consumption (such as
in a specification document) may not want to include parts of the
final data item, destructively replacing complete subtrees or
possibly just parts of a lengthy string by _elisions_
(Section 4.2).
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
| Implementation note: Typically, the ultimate applications will
| fail if they encounter tags unknown to them, which the ones
| defined in this section likely are. Where chains of tools are
| involved in processing CDN, it may be useful to fail earlier
| than at the ultimate receiver in the chain unless specific
| processing options (e.g., command line flags) are given that
| indicate which of these stand-ins are expected at this stage in
| the chain.
4.1. Handling unknown application-extension identifiers
When ingesting CDN, any application-oriented extension literals are
usually decoded and transformed into the corresponding data item
during ingestion. If an application-extension is not known or not
implemented by the ingesting process, this is usually an error and
processing has to stop.
However, in certain cases, it can be desirable to exceptionally carry
an uninterpreted application-oriented extension literal in an
ingested data item, allowing to postpone its decoding to a specific
later stage of ingestion.
This specification defines a CBOR Tag for this purpose: The
Diagnostic Notation Unresolved Application-Extension Tag, tag number
CPA999 (Section 6.5). The content of this tag is an array of a text
string for the application-extension prefix, and another array:
* For app-strings, the second array contains a single item, a text
string containing the text notated by the single-quoted string in
the app-string.
* For app-sequences, the second array contains zero or more items,
which represent each item in the sequence contained in the app-
sequence.
For example, cri'https://example.com' can be represented as /CPA/
999(["cri", ["https://example.com"]]), or hash<<"data", -44>> as
/CPA/ 999(["hash", ["data", -44]]).
If a stage of ingestion is not prepared to handle the Unresolved
Application-Extension Tag, this is an error and processing has to
stop, as if this stage had been ingesting an unknown or unimplemented
application-extension literal itself.
// RFC-Editor: This document uses the CPA (code point allocation)
// convention described in [I-D.bormann-cbor-draft-numbers]. For
// each usage of the term "CPA", please remove the prefix "CPA" from
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
// the indicated value and replace the residue with the value
// assigned by IANA; perform an analogous substitution for all other
// occurrences of the prefix "CPA" in the document. Finally, please
// remove this note.
4.2. Handling information deliberately elided from a CDN document
When using CDN for exposition in a document or on a whiteboard, it is
often useful to be able to leave out parts of a CDN document that are
not of interest at that point of the exposition.
To facilitate this, this specification supports the use of an
_ellipsis_ (notated as three or more dots in a row, as in ...) to
indicate parts of a CDN document that have been elided (and therefore
cannot be reconstructed).
Upon ingesting CDN as a representation of a CBOR data item for
further processing, the occurrence of an ellipsis usually is an error
and processing has to stop.
However, it is useful to be able to process CDN documents with
ellipses in the automation scripts for the documents using them.
This specification defines a CBOR Tag that can be used in the
ingestion for this purpose: The Diagnostic Notation Ellipsis Tag, tag
number CPA888 (Section 6.5). The content of this tag either is
1. null (indicating a data item entirely replaced by an ellipsis),
or it is
2. an array, the elements of which are alternating between fragments
of a string and the actual elisions, represented as ellipses
carrying a null as content.
Elisions can stand in for entire subtrees, e.g. in:
[1, 2, ..., 3]
{ "a": 1,
"b": ...,
...: ...
}
A single ellipsis (or key/value pair of ellipses) can imply eliding
multiple elements in an array (members in a map); if more detailed
control is required, a data definition language such as CDDL can be
employed. (Note that the stand-in form defined here does not allow
multiple key/value pairs with an ellipsis as a key: the CBOR data
item would not be valid.)
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
Subtree elisions can be represented in a CBOR data item by using
/CPA/888(null) as the stand-in:
[1, 2, 888(null), 3]
{ "a": 1,
"b": 888(null),
888(null): 888(null)
}
Elisions also can be used as part of a (text or byte) string:
{ "contract": "Herewith I buy" + ... + "gned: Alice & Bob",
"bytes_in_IRI": 'https://a.example/' + ... + '&q=Übergrößenträger',
"signature": h'4711...0815',
}
The example "contract" combines string concatenation via the +
operator (Section 5.1) with an ellipsis. The example "signature"
uses special syntax that allows the use of ellipses between the bytes
notated _inside_ h'' literals.
String elisions can be represented in a CBOR data item by a stand-in
that wraps an array of string fragments alternating with ellipsis
indicators:
{ "contract": /CPA/888(["Herewith I buy", 888(null),
"gned: Alice & Bob"]),
"bytes_in_IRI": 888(['https://a.example/', 888(null),
'&q=Übergrößenträger']),
"signature": 888([h'4711', 888(null), h'0815']),
}
Note that the use of elisions is different from "commenting out" CDN
text, e.g.:
{ "signature": h'4711/.../0815',
# ...: ...
}
The consumer of this CDN will ignore the comments and therefore will
have no idea after ingestion that some information has been elided;
validation steps may then simply fail instead of being informed about
the elisions.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
5. ABNF Definitions
This section collects grammars in ABNF form ([STD68] as extended in
[RFC7405]) that serve to define the syntax of CDN and some
application-oriented literals.
| Implementation note: The ABNF definitions in this section are
| intended to be useful in a Parsing Expression Grammar (PEG)
| parser interpretation (see Appendix A of [RFC8610] for an
| introduction into PEG).
5.1. Overall ABNF Definition for Concise Diagnostic Notation
This subsection provides an overall ABNF definition for the syntax of
concise diagnostic notation.
| This ABNF definition treats all single-quoted string literals
| the same, whether they are unprefixed and constitute byte
| string literals, or prefixed and their content subject to
| further processing. The text string value of the single-quoted
| strings that goes into that further processing is described
| using separate ABNF definitions in Section 5.2; as a
| convention, the grammar for the content of an app-string with
| prefix, say, p, is described by an ABNF definition with the
| rule name app-string-p.
|
| As an implementation note, some implementations may want to
| integrate the parsing and processing of app-string content for
| certain application extensions with the overall grammar.
| Example grammars for such integrated parsers are provided with
| this specification in Section 5.3.
For simplicity, the internal parsing for the built-in CDN prefixes is
specified in the same way. ABNF definitions for h''/h`` and
b64''/b64`` are provided in Section 5.2.1 and Section 5.2.2.
seq = S [item *(MSC item) SOC]
one-item = S item S
item = map / array / tagged
/ number / simple
/ string / streamstring
string1 = (tstr / bstr) spec
string1e = string1 / ellipsis
ellipsis = 3*"." ; "..." or more dots
string = string1e *(S "+" S string1e)
number = (hexfloat / hexint / octint / binint
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
/ decnumber / nonfin) spec
sign = "+" / "-"
decnumber = [sign] (1*DIGIT ["." *DIGIT] / "." 1*DIGIT)
["e" [sign] 1*DIGIT]
hexfloat = [sign] "0x" (1*HEXDIG ["." *HEXDIG] / "." 1*HEXDIG)
"p" [sign] 1*DIGIT
hexint = [sign] "0x" 1*HEXDIG
octint = [sign] "0o" 1*ODIGIT
binint = [sign] "0b" 1*BDIGIT
nonfin = %s"Infinity"
/ %s"-Infinity"
/ %s"NaN"
simple = %s"false"
/ %s"true"
/ %s"null"
/ %s"undefined"
/ %s"simple(" S simple-number S ")"
simple-number = "25" %x30-35 ; 250-255
/ "2" %x30-34 DIGIT ; 200-249
/ "1" 2DIGIT ; 100-199
/ %x34-39 DIGIT ; 40-99
/ "3" %x32-39 ; 32-39
;; there are no simple values between 24-31
/ "2" %x30-33 ; 20-23
/ "1" DIGIT ; 10-19
/ DIGIT ; 0-9
uint = "0" / DIGIT1 *DIGIT
tagged = uint spec "(" S item S ")"
app-prefix = lcalpha *lcldh ; including h and b64
/ ucalpha *ucldh ; tagged variant, if defined
app-string = app-prefix sqstr
app-sequence = app-prefix "<<" seq ">>"
app-rstring = app-prefix rawstring
rawstring = startrawdelim
[newline] ; swallow up to one leading newline
rawcontent
matchrawdelim
rawdelim = 1*"`"
startrawdelim = rawdelim
; width (number of backquotes) distinguishes
; between following matchrawdelim and shortrawdelim
matchrawdelim = rawdelim ; width >= previous startrawdelim
shortrawdelim = rawdelim ; width < previous startrawdelim
rawchars = 1*(%x0a/%x0d / %x20-5f / %x61-7e / NONASCII)
rawcontent = 1*(rawchars / shortrawdelim)
sqstr = SQUOTE *single-quoted SQUOTE
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
bstr = app-string / sqstr / app-rstring / rawstring
/ app-sequence / embedded
; note: rawstring is text; app-... can be any type
tstr = DQUOTE *double-quoted DQUOTE
embedded = "<<" seq ">>"
array = "[" (specms S item *(MSC item) SOC / spec S) "]"
map = "{" (specms S keyp *(MSC keyp) SOC / spec S) "}"
keyp = item S ":" S item
; We allow %x09 HT in prose, but not in string literals
blank = %x09 / %x0A / %x0D / %x20
lblank = %x0A / %x20 ; Not HT or CR (gone)
non-slash = blank / %x21-2e / %x30-7F / NONASCII
non-slash-star = blank / %x21-29 / %x2b-2e / %x30-7F / NONASCII
non-star = blank / %x21-29 / %x2b-7F / NONASCII
ends-in-star = *non-star 1*"*"
non-lf = %x09 / %x0D / %x20-7F / NONASCII
eol-comment = "#" / "//"
comment = "/" non-slash-star *non-slash "/"
/ "/*" ends-in-star
*(non-slash-star ends-in-star) "/"
/ eol-comment *non-lf %x0A
; optional space
S = *blank *(comment *blank)
; mandatory space
MS = (blank/comment) S
; mandatory comma and/or space
MSC = ("," S) / (MS ["," S])
; optional comma and/or space
SOC = S ["," S]
; check semantically that strings are either all text or all bytes
; note that there must be at least one string to distinguish
streamstring = "(_" MS string *(MSC string) SOC ")"
spec = ["_" *wordchar]
specms = ["_" *wordchar MS]
double-quoted = unescaped
/ SQUOTE
/ "\" escapable-d
single-quoted = unescaped
/ DQUOTE
/ "\" escapable-s
escapable1 = %s"b" ; BS backspace U+0008
/ %s"f" ; FF form feed U+000C
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
/ %s"n" ; LF line feed U+000A
/ %s"r" ; CR carriage return U+000D
/ %s"t" ; HT horizontal tab U+0009
/ "\" ; \ backslash (reverse solidus) U+005C
escapable-d = escapable1
/ DQUOTE
/ "/" ; / slash (solidus) U+002F (JSON!)
/ (%s"u" hexchar) ; uXXXX U+XXXX
escapable-s = escapable1
/ SQUOTE
/ (%s"u" hexchar-s) ; uXXXX U+XXXX
hexchar = "{" (1*"0" [ hexscalar ] / hexscalar) "}"
/ non-surrogate
/ two-surrogate
non-surrogate = ((DIGIT / "A"/"B"/"C" / "E"/"F") 3HEXDIG)
/ ("D" ODIGIT 2HEXDIG )
two-surrogate = high-surrogate "\" %s"u" low-surrogate
high-surrogate = "D" ("8"/"9"/"A"/"B") 2HEXDIG
low-surrogate = "D" ("C"/"D"/"E"/"F") 2HEXDIG
hexscalar = "10" 4HEXDIG / HEXDIG1 4HEXDIG
/ non-surrogate / 1*3HEXDIG
; single-quote hexchar-s: don't allow 0020..007e
hexchar-s = "{" (1*"0" [ hexscalar-s ] / hexscalar-s) "}"
/ non-surrogate-s
/ two-surrogate
non-surrogate-s = "007F" ; rubout
/ "00" ("0"/"1"/"8"/"9"/HEXDIGA) HEXDIG
/ "0" HEXDIG1 2HEXDIG
/ non-surrogate-1
non-surrogate-1 = ((DIGIT1 / "A"/"B"/"C" / "E"/"F") 3HEXDIG)
/ ("D" ODIGIT 2HEXDIG )
hexscalar-s = "10" 4HEXDIG / HEXDIG1 4HEXDIG
/ non-surrogate-1 / HEXDIG1 2HEXDIG
/ ("1"/"8"/"9"/HEXDIGA) HEXDIG
/ "7F"
/ HEXDIG1
; Note that no other C0 characters are allowed, including %x09 HT
unescaped = %x0A ; new line
/ %x0D ; carriage return -- ignored on input
/ %x20-21
; omit 0x22 "
/ %x23-26
; omit 0x27 '
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
/ %x28-5B
; omit 0x5C \
/ %x5D-7F
/ NONASCII
newline = [%x0D] %x0A
DQUOTE = %x22 ; " double quote
SQUOTE = "'" ; ' single quote
DIGIT = %x30-39 ; 0-9
DIGIT1 = %x31-39 ; 1-9
ODIGIT = %x30-37 ; 0-7
BDIGIT = %x30-31 ; 0-1
HEXDIGA = "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
; Note: double-quoted strings as in "A" are case-insensitive in ABNF
HEXDIG = DIGIT / HEXDIGA
HEXDIG1 = DIGIT1 / HEXDIGA
lcalpha = %x61-7A ; a-z
lcldh = lcalpha / DIGIT / "-"
ucalpha = %x41-5A ; A-Z
ucldh = ucalpha / DIGIT / "-"
ALPHA = lcalpha / ucalpha
wordchar = "_" / ALPHA / DIGIT ; [_a-z0-9A-Z]
NONASCII = %x80-D7FF / %xE000-10FFFF
Figure 1: Overall ABNF Definition of CDN
While an ABNF grammar defines the set of character strings that are
considered to be valid CDN by this ABNF, the mapping of these
character strings into the generic data model of CBOR is not always
obvious.
The following additional items should help in the interpretation:
1. As mentioned in the terminology (Section 1.2), the ABNF terminal
values in this document define Unicode scalar values (characters)
rather than their UTF-8 encoding. For example, the Unicode PLACE
OF INTEREST SIGN (U+2318) would be defined in ABNF as %x2318.
2. Unicode CARRIAGE RETURN characters (U+000D, often seen escaped as
"\r" in many programming languages) that exist in the input
(unescaped) are ignored as if they were not in the input wherever
they appear. This is most important when they are found in (text
or byte) string contexts (see the "unescaped" ABNF rule). On
some platforms, a carriage return is always added in front of a
LINE FEED (U+000A, also often seen escaped as "\n" in many
programming languages), but on other platforms, carriage returns
are not used at line breaks. The intent behind ignoring
unescaped carriage returns is to ensure that input generated or
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
processed on either of these kinds of platforms will generate the
same bytes in the CBOR data items created from that input.
(Platforms that use just a CARRIAGE RETURN by itself to signify
an end of line are no longer relevant and the files they produce
are out of scope for this document.) If a carriage return is
needed in the CBOR data item, it can be added explicitly using
the escaped form \r.
3. decnumber stands for an integer in the usual decimal notation,
unless at least one of the optional parts starting with "." and
"e" are present, in which case it stands for a floating point
value in the usual decimal notation. Note that the grammar now
allows 3. for 3.0 and .3 for 0.3 (also for hexadecimal floating
point below); implementers are advised that some platform numeric
parsers accept only a subset of the floating point syntax in this
document and may require some preprocessing to use here.
4. hexint, octint, and binint stand for an integer in the usual base
16/hexadecimal ("0x"), base 8/octal ("0o"), or base 2/binary
("0b") notation. hexfloat stands for a floating point number in
the usual hexadecimal notation (which uses a mantissa in
hexadecimal and an exponent in decimal notation, see
Section 5.12.3 of [IEEE754], Section 6.4.4.3 of [C], or
Section 5.13.4 of [Cplusplus]; floating-suffix/floating-point-
suffix from the latter two is not used here).
5. For hexint, octint, binint, and when decnumber stands for an
integer, the corresponding CBOR data item is represented using
major type 0 or 1 if possible, or using tag 2 or 3 if not. In
the latter case, this specification does not define any encoding
indicators that apply. If fine control over encoding is desired,
this can be expressed by being explicit about the representation
as a tag: E.g., 987654321098765432310, which is equivalent to
2(h'35 8a 75 04 38 f3 80 f5 f6') in its Preferred Serialization,
might be written as 2_3(h'00 00 00 35 8a 75 04 38 f3 80 f5 f6'_1)
if leading zeros need to be added during serialization to obtain
specific sizes for tag head, byte string head, and the overall
byte string.
When decnumber stands for a floating point value, and for
hexfloat and nonfin, a floating point data item with major type 7
is used; diagnostic implementations employ Preferred
Serialization unless the item was modified by an encoding
indicator, which then needs to be _1, _2, or _3. For this, the
number range needs to fit into an [IEEE754] binary64 (or the size
corresponding to the encoding indicator), and the precision will
be adjusted to binary64 before further applying Preferred
Serialization (or to the size corresponding to the encoding
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
indicator). Tag 4/5 representations are not generated in these
cases. Future app-prefixes could be defined to allow more
control for obtaining a tag 4/5 representation directly from a
hex or decimal floating point literal.
6. spec stands for an encoding indicator. See Section 2.3 for
details.
7. The ABNF grammar for raw strings is lenient; a parser needs to
implement the ABNF comments on matchrawdelim and shortrawdelim as
well. shortrawdelim only matches sequences of backquotes that
are shorter than startrawdelim. matchrawdelim only matches
sequences of backquotes that are as long or longer than
startrawdelim. Any excess number of backquotes in matchrawdelim
are added to the string content.
| In a PEG parser that implements predicates, these matching
| rules can for instance be implemented as follows:
|
| startrawdelim = rawdelim&{|(rd)|@rdlen = rd.text_value.length}
| shortrawdelim = rawdelim&{|(rd)|rd.text_value.length < @rdlen}
| matchrawdelim = rawdelim&{|(rd)|rd.text_value.length >= @rdlen}
8. Concise diagnostic notation allows a (text or byte) string to be
built up from multiple (text or byte) string literals, separated
by a + operator; these are then concatenated into a single
string.
string, string1e, string1, and ellipsis realize: (1) the
representation of strings in this form split up into multiple
chunks, and (2) the use of ellipses to represent elisions
(Section 4.2).
Text strings and byte strings do not mix within such a
concatenation, except that byte string literal notation can be
used inside a sequence of concatenated text string notation
literals, to encode characters that may be better represented in
an encoded way. The following four text string values (adapted
from Appendix G.4 of [RFC8610] by updating to explicit +
operators) are equivalent:
"Hello world"
"Hello " + "world"
"Hello" + h'20' + "world"
"" + h'48656c6c6f20776f726c64' + ""
Similarly, the following byte string values are equivalent:
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
'Hello world'
'Hello ' + 'world'
'Hello ' + h'776f726c64'
'Hello' + h'20' + 'world'
'' + h'48656c6c6f20776f726c64' + '' + b64''
h'4 86 56c 6c6f' + h' 20776 f726c64'
The semantic processing of these constructs is governed by the
following rules:
* A single ... is a general ellipsis, which by itself can stand
for any data item. Multiple adjacent concatenated ellipses
are equivalent to a single ellipsis.
* An ellipsis can be concatenated (on one or both sides) with
string chunks (string1); the result is a CBOR tag number
CPA888 that contains an array with joined together spans of
such chunks plus the ellipses represented by 888(null).
* If there is no ellipsis in the concatenated list, the result
of processing the list will always be a single item.
* The bytes in the concatenated sequence of string chunks are
simply joined together, proceeding from left to right. If the
left hand side of a concatenation is a text string, the
joining operation results in a text string, and that result
needs to be valid UTF-8 except for implementations that
support and are enabled for generation/ingestion of CDN for
CBOR data items that are well-formed but not valid. If the
left hand side is a byte string, the right hand side also
needs to be a byte string.
* Some of the strings may be app-strings. If the result type of
the app-string is an actual (text or byte) string, joining of
those string chunks occurs as with chunks directly notated as
string literals; otherwise the occurrence of more than one
app-string or an app-string together with a directly notated
string cannot be processed. (This determination must be made
at the time the app-string is interpreted; see Section 4.1 for
how this may not be immediately during parsing.)
5.1.1. Discussion
Note that the syntax defined here for concatenation of components
uses an explicit + operator between the components to be
concatenated.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
| This is not entirely backward compatible to Appendix G.4 of
| [RFC8610], which used simple juxtaposition to indicate
| concatenation of strings. This was not widely implemented and
| got in the way of making the use of commas optional in other
| places via the rule SOC.
5.2. ABNF Definitions for Application Extension Content
This subsection provides ABNF definitions for the content of
application-oriented extension literals defined in [STD94] and in
this specification, where applicable. These grammars describe the
_decoded_ content of the single-quoted or raw string components that
combine with the application-extension identifiers used as prefixes
to form application-oriented extension literals. Each of these may
integrate ABNF rules defined in Figure 1, which are not always
repeated here.
Table 7 summarizes the app-prefix values defined in this document.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
+============+===========================+=================+
| app-prefix | content of single-quoted | result type |
| | or raw string | |
+============+===========================+=================+
| h | hexadecimal form of | byte string |
| | binary data | |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| H | (not used) | |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| b64 | base64 forms (classic or | byte string |
| | base64url) of binary data | |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| B64 | (not used) | |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| dt | RFC 3339 date/time | number (int or |
| | | float) |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| DT | " | Tag 1 on the |
| | | above |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| ip | IP address or prefix | byte string, |
| | | array of length |
| | | and byte string |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| IP | " | Tag 54 (IPv6) |
| | | or 52 (IPv4) on |
| | | the above |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| hash | string (usually used with | byte string |
| | sequences) | |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| HASH | (not used) | |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| cri | RFC 3986 URI or URI | CBOR structure |
| | reference | representing |
| | | equivalent CRI |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| CRI | " | Tag 99 on the |
| | | above |
+------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
Table 7: App-prefix Values Defined in this Document
Note that implementation platforms may already provide
implementations of grammars used in application-extensions, such as
of RFC 3339 for dt'' and of IP address syntax for ip''. CDN-based
tools may want to use these implementation libraries instead of using
the grammars that are provided here as a reference.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
For convenience, the common definitions in Figure 2 are not repeated
in the below ABNF grammars.
ALPHA = %x41-5a / %x61-7a
DIGIT = %x30-39 ; 0-9
HEXDIG = DIGIT / HEXDIGA
HEXDIGA = "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
; Note: double-quoted strings as in "A" are case-insensitive in ABNF
lblank = %x0A / %x20 ; Not HT or CR (gone)
non-lf = %x20-7f / NONASCII
NONASCII = %x80-D7FF / %xE000-10FFFF
Figure 2: Common Rules Used in app-extension ABNF grammars
5.2.1. h: ABNF Definition of Hexadecimal representation of a byte
string
The syntax of the content of byte strings represented in hex, such as
h'', h'0815', or h'/head/ 63 /contents/ 66 6f 6f' (another
representation of << "foo" >>), is described by the ABNF in Figure 3.
This syntax accommodates both lowercase and uppercase hex digits, as
well as blank space (including comments) around each hex digit.
app-string-h = S *(HEXDIG S HEXDIG S / ellipsis S)
[eol-comment *non-lf]
ellipsis = 3*"."
non-slash = lblank / %x21-2e / %x30-7f / NONASCII
non-slash-star = lblank / %x21-29 / %x2b-2e / %x30-7f / NONASCII
non-star = lblank / %x21-29 / %x2b-7f / NONASCII
ends-in-star = *non-star 1*"*"
non-lf = %x20-7f / NONASCII
eol-comment = "#" / "//"
S = *lblank *(comment *lblank)
comment = "/" non-slash-star *non-slash "/"
/ "/*" ends-in-star
*(non-slash-star ends-in-star) "/"
/ eol-comment *non-lf %x0A
Figure 3: ABNF Definition of Hexadecimal Representation of a Byte
String
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
| The comment syntax provided inside the hex string is intended
| to mimic the overall syntax for comments in CDN (Section 2.2).
| Implementation note: Comments and blank space are also
| described by the following search regexp, which can be used to
| remove them. For display, the regexp is split along the outer
| alternative into four lines, which need to be combined before
| use; \z stands for the end of the string and is notated $ in
| some regexp dialects.
|
| \s|
| /\*(?:[^*]*\*+)(?:[^/*][^*]*\*+)*/|
| /[^/*][^/]*/|
| (?:#|//)[^\n]*(?:\n|\z)
5.2.2. b64: ABNF Definition of Base64 representation of a byte string
The syntax of the content of byte strings represented in base64 is
described by the ABNF in Figure 4.
This syntax allows both the classic (Section 4 of [RFC4648]) and the
URL-safe (Section 5 of [RFC4648]) alphabet to be used. It
accommodates, but does not require base64 padding. Note that
inclusion of classic base64 makes it impossible to have comments
based on slash characters in b64, as "/" is valid base64-classic.
app-string-b64 = B *(4(b64dig B))
[b64dig B b64dig B ["=" B "=" / b64dig B ["="]] B]
["#" *non-lf]
b64dig = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "_" / "+" / "/"
B = *lblank *(comment *lblank)
comment = "#" *non-lf %x0A
Figure 4: ABNF definition of Base64 Representation of a Byte String
5.2.3. dt: ABNF Definition of RFC 3339 Representation of a Date/Time
The syntax of the content of dt literals can be described by the ABNF
for date-time in Figure 5. This is derived from [RFC3339] as
summarized in Section 3 of [RFC9165].
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
app-string-dt = date-time
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
Figure 5: ABNF Definition of RFC3339 Representation of a Date/Time
5.2.4. ip: ABNF Definition of Textual Representation of an IP Address
The syntax of the content of ip literals can be described by the ABNF
for IPv4address and IPv6address in Section 3.2.2 of [RFC3986], as
included in slightly updated form in Figure 6.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
app-string-ip = IPaddress ["/" uint]
IPaddress = IPv4address
/ IPv6address
; ABNF from RFC 3986, re-arranged for PEG compatibility:
IPv6address = 6( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ "::" 5( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ [ h16 ] "::" 4( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ [ h16 *1( ":" h16 ) ] "::" 3( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ [ h16 *2( ":" h16 ) ] "::" 2( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ [ h16 *3( ":" h16 ) ] "::" h16 ":" ls32
/ [ h16 *4( ":" h16 ) ] "::" ls32
/ [ h16 *5( ":" h16 ) ] "::" h16
/ [ h16 *6( ":" h16 ) ] "::"
h16 = 1*4HEXDIG
ls32 = ( h16 ":" h16 ) / IPv4address
IPv4address = dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet
dec-octet = "25" %x30-35 ; 250-255
/ "2" %x30-34 DIGIT ; 200-249
/ "1" 2DIGIT ; 100-199
/ %x31-39 DIGIT ; 10-99
/ DIGIT ; 0-9
DIGIT1 = %x31-39 ; 1-9
uint = "0" / DIGIT1 *DIGIT
Figure 6: ABNF Definition of Textual Representation of an IP Address
5.2.5. cri: ABNF Definition of URI Representation of a CRI
It can be expected that implementations of the application-extension
identifier "cri" will make use of platform-provided URI
implementations, which will include a URI parser.
In case such a URI parser is not available or inconvenient to
integrate, a grammar of the content of cri literals is provided by
the ABNF for URI-reference in Section 4.1 of RFC 3986 [RFC3986] with
certain re-arrangements taken from Section 5.2.4; these are
reproduced in Figure 7. If the content is not ASCII only (i.e., for
IRIs), first apply Section 3.1 of [RFC3987] and apply this grammar to
the result.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
app-string-cri = URI-reference
; ABNF from RFC 3986:
URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
hier-part = "//" authority path-abempty
/ path-absolute
/ path-rootless
/ path-empty
URI-reference = URI / relative-ref
absolute-URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ]
relative-ref = relative-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
relative-part = "//" authority path-abempty
/ path-absolute
/ path-noscheme
/ path-empty
scheme = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" / "." )
authority = [ userinfo "@" ] host [ ":" port ]
userinfo = *( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / ":" )
host = IP-literal / IPv4address / reg-name
port = *DIGIT
IP-literal = "[" ( IPv6address / IPvFuture ) "]"
IPvFuture = "v" 1*HEXDIG "." 1*( unreserved / sub-delims / ":" )
; Use IPv6address, h16, ls32, IPv4adress, dec-octet as re-arranged
; for PEG Compatibility in Figure 6 of [RFC XXXX]:
IPv6address = 6( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ "::" 5( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ [ h16 ] "::" 4( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ [ h16 *1( ":" h16 ) ] "::" 3( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ [ h16 *2( ":" h16 ) ] "::" 2( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ [ h16 *3( ":" h16 ) ] "::" h16 ":" ls32
/ [ h16 *4( ":" h16 ) ] "::" ls32
/ [ h16 *5( ":" h16 ) ] "::" h16
/ [ h16 *6( ":" h16 ) ] "::"
h16 = 1*4HEXDIG
ls32 = ( h16 ":" h16 ) / IPv4address
IPv4address = dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
dec-octet = "25" %x30-35 ; 250-255
/ "2" %x30-34 DIGIT ; 200-249
/ "1" 2DIGIT ; 100-199
/ %x31-39 DIGIT ; 10-99
/ DIGIT ; 0-9
reg-name = *( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims )
path = path-abempty ; begins with "/" or is empty
/ path-absolute ; begins with "/" but not "//"
/ path-noscheme ; begins with a non-colon segment
/ path-rootless ; begins with a segment
/ path-empty ; zero characters
path-abempty = *( "/" segment )
path-absolute = "/" [ segment-nz *( "/" segment ) ]
path-noscheme = segment-nz-nc *( "/" segment )
path-rootless = segment-nz *( "/" segment )
path-empty = 0<pchar>
segment = *pchar
segment-nz = 1*pchar
segment-nz-nc = 1*( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / "@" )
; non-zero-length segment without any colon ":"
pchar = unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / ":" / "@"
query = *( pchar / "/" / "?" )
fragment = *( pchar / "/" / "?" )
pct-encoded = "%" HEXDIG HEXDIG
unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~"
reserved = gen-delims / sub-delims
gen-delims = ":" / "/" / "?" / "#" / "[" / "]" / "@"
sub-delims = "!" / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")"
/ "*" / "+" / "," / ";" / "="
Figure 7: ABNF Definition of URI Representation of a CRI
5.3. ABNF Definitions for Integrated Extension Parsers
For some applications of CDN, it is an optimization to integrate
parsers for the content of some prefixed string literals into the
main parser, handling both the string literal syntax (e.g., escapes
such as \' and \\) and the syntax of the extension content in one go.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
For application-extensions that only use printable ASCII characters
(from U+0020 to U+007E) minus single-quote ' and backslash \, the
ABNF such as that given in Section 5.2 can be directly used as an
integrated parser, after adding some glue ABNF. For instance, for
app-string-dt, add an alternative to bstr that points to a rule for
prefixed single-quoted string literals (Figure 8).
bstr = sq-app-string-dt /
app-string / sqstr / app-sequence / embedded
sq-app-string-dt = (%s"dt'"/%s"DT'") app-string-dt "'"
Figure 8: Glue ABNF for Integrated DT Parser
To facilitate writing integrated ABNF for more complex prefixed
string literals, the ABNF definitions in Figure 9 may be useful and
are used in the rest of this section.
i-HT = %s"\t" / %s"\u" ("0009" / "{" *("0") "9}")
i-LF = %x0a / %s"\n" / %s"\u" ("000A" / "{" *("0") "A}")
i-CR = %x0d / %s"\r" / %s"\u" ("000D" / "{" *("0") "D}")
i-blank = i-LF / i-CR / " "
i-non-lf = i-HT / i-CR / %x20-26 / "\'" / %x28-5b
/ "\\" / %x5d-7f / i-NONASCII
i-NONASCII = NONASCII / %s"\u" ESCGE7F
; hex escaping for U+007F or greater
ESCGE7F = "D" ("8"/"9"/"A"/"B") 2HEXDIG
%s"\u" "D" ("C"/"D"/"E"/"F") 2HEXDIG
/ FOURHEX1 / "0" HEXDIG1 2HEXDIG / "00" TWOHEX1
/ "{" *("0")
("10" 4HEXDIG / HEXDIG1 4HEXDIG
/ FOURHEX1 / HEXDIG1 2HEXDIG / TWOHEX1)
"}"
; xxxx - 0xxx - Dhigh\uDloow
FOURHEX1 = (DIGIT1 / "A"/"B"/"C" / "E"/"F") 3HEXDIG
/ "D" ODIGIT 2HEXDIG
; 00xx - ASCII + 007F
TWOHEX1 = ("8"/"9" / HEXDIGA) HEXDIG / "7F"
Figure 9: ABNF Definitions Useful for Integrated Extension Parsers
Similarly, for integrated parsers for extension literals built from
raw strings, the ABNF definitions in Figure 10 can be useful.
fitrawdelim only matches sequences of backquotes that are exactly as
long as a previous startrawdelim.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
fitrawdelim = rawdelim ; width == previous startrawdelim
r-non-lf = %x0D / %x20-5f / %x61-7f / NONASCII / shortrawdelim
Figure 10: ABNF Definitions Useful for Raw String Integrated
Extension Parsers
| In a PEG parser that implements predicates, the matching rule
| for fitrawdelim can for instance be implemented as follows:
|
| fitrawdelim = rawdelim&{|(rd)|rd.text_value.length == @rdlen}
Four subsections with ABNF for integrated parsers follow, a pair for
h'' and b64'', and a pair for h`` and b64``. There is no requirement
for a new application-extension to supply ABNF for an integrated
parser (or any ABNF at all!), in particular if the parsing function
is likely to be fulfilled by a platform library. If ABNF for the
content of a single-quoted string is available in an application-
extension specification, ABNF for an integrated parser can be written
as a separate activity or also automatically derived. At the time of
writing, one example for a tool performing such a derivation is
available as open-source software [ABNFROB].
5.3.1. h'': ABNF Definition of Integrated Parser
With glue ABNF similar to that in Figure 8 and common definitions in
Figures 2 and 9, ABNF such as that shown in Figure 11 can be used as
an integrated parser for h prefixed single-quote strings.
sq-app-string-h = %s"h'" s-app-string-h "'"
s-app-string-h = h-S *(HEXDIG h-S HEXDIG h-S / ellipsis h-S)
[eol-comment *i-non-lf]
h-S = *(i-blank) *(h-comment *(i-blank))
h-non-slash = i-blank / %x21-26 / "\'" / %x28-2e
/ %x30-5b / "\\" / %x5d-7f / i-NONASCII
h-non-slash-star = i-blank / %x21-26 / "\'" / %x28-29 / %x2b-2e
/ %x30-5b / "\\" / %x5d-7f / i-NONASCII
h-non-star = i-blank / %x21-26 / "\'" / %x28-29 / %x2b-5b
/ "\\" / %x5d-7f / i-NONASCII
h-ends-in-star = *h-non-star 1*"*"
h-comment = "/" h-non-slash-star *h-non-slash "/"
/ "/*" h-ends-in-star
*(h-non-slash-star h-ends-in-star) "/"
/ eol-comment *i-non-lf i-LF
Figure 11: ABNF Definition for Integrated Hex Parser
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
5.3.2. b64'': ABNF Definition of Integrated Parser
With glue ABNF similar to that in Figure 8 and common definitions in
Figures 2 and 9, ABNF such as that shown in Figure 12 can be used as
an integrated parser for b64 prefixed single-quote strings.
sq-app-string-b64 = %s"b64'" s-app-string-b64 "'"
s-app-string-b64 = b64-S *(4(b64dig b64-S))
[b64dig b64-S b64dig b64-S
["=" b64-S "=" / b64dig b64-S ["="]] b64-S]
["#" *i-non-lf]
b64dig = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "_" / "+" / "/"
b64-S = *i-blank *(b64-comment *i-blank)
b64-comment = "#" *i-non-lf %x0A
Figure 12: ABNF Definition for Integrated Base64 Parser
5.3.3. h``: ABNF Definition of Integrated Parser
With glue ABNF similar to that in Figure 8 and common definitions in
Figures 2, 9 and 10, ABNF such as that shown in Figure 13 can be used
as an integrated parser for h prefixed raw strings.
raw-app-string-h = %s"h" startrawdelim r-app-string-h
r-app-string-h = rh-S *(HEXDIG rh-S HEXDIG rh-S / ellipsis rh-S)
(eol-comment *r-non-lf matchrawdelim / fitrawdelim)
rh-S = *(lblank) *(rh-comment *(lblank))
rh-2 = %x61-7f / NONASCII / shortrawdelim
rh-non-slash = lblank / %x21-2e / %x30-5f / rh-2
rh-non-slash-star = lblank / %x21-29 / %x2b-2e / %x30-5f / rh-2
rh-non-star = lblank / %x21-29 / %x2b-5f / rh-2
rh-ends-in-star = *rh-non-star 1*"*"
rh-comment = "/" rh-non-slash-star *rh-non-slash "/"
/ "/*" rh-ends-in-star
*(rh-non-slash-star rh-ends-in-star) "/"
/ eol-comment *r-non-lf %x0A
Figure 13: ABNF Definition for Integrated Raw String Hex Parser
5.3.4. b64``: ABNF Definition of Integrated Parser
With glue ABNF similar to that in Figure 8, common definitions in
Figures 2, 9 and 10 as well as the rule b64dig from Figure 12, ABNF
such as that shown in Figure 14 can be used as an integrated parser
for b64 prefixed raw strings.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
raw-app-string-b64 = %s"b64" startrawdelim r-app-string-b64
r-app-string-b64 = rb64-S *(4(b64dig rb64-S))
[b64dig rb64-S b64dig rb64-S
["=" rb64-S "=" / b64dig rb64-S ["="]] rb64-S]
("#" *r-non-lf matchrawdelim / fitrawdelim)
rb64-S = *lblank *(rb64-comment *lblank)
rb64-comment = "#" *r-non-lf %x0A
Figure 14: ABNF Definition for Integrated Raw String Base64 Parser
6. IANA Considerations
// RFC Editor: please replace RFC-XXXX with the RFC number of this
// RFC, [IANA.concise-diagnostic-notation] with a reference to the
// new registry group, and remove this note.
6.1. Concise Diagnostic Notation Application-extension Identifiers
Registry
IANA is requested to create an "Application-Extension Identifiers"
registry in a new "Concise Diagnostic Notation" registry group
[IANA.concise-diagnostic-notation], with the policy "expert review"
(Section 4.5 of RFC 8126 [BCP26]).
The experts are instructed to be frugal in the allocation of
application-extension identifiers that are suggestive of generally
applicable semantics, keeping them in reserve for application-
extensions that are likely to enjoy wide use and can make good use of
their conciseness. The expert is also instructed to direct the
registrant to provide a specification (Section 4.6 of RFC 8126
[BCP26]), but can make exceptions, for instance when a specification
is not available at the time of registration but is likely
forthcoming. If the expert becomes aware of application-extension
identifiers that are deployed and in use, they may also initiate a
registration on their own if they deem such a registration can avert
potential future collisions.
Each entry in the registry must include:
Application-Extension Identifier:
a lowercase ASCII [STD80] string that starts with a letter and can
contain letters, digits, and hyphens after that ([a-z][a-z0-9-]*).
No other entry in the registry can have the same application-
extension identifier.
Description:
a brief description
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
Change Controller:
(see Section 2.3 of RFC 8126 [BCP26])
Reference:
a reference document that provides a description of the
application-extension identifier
The initial content of the registry is shown in Table 8; all initial
entries have the Change Controller "IETF".
+=======================+===============+======================+
| Application-extension | Description | Reference |
| Identifier | | |
+=======================+===============+======================+
| h | Reserved | RFC8949 |
+-----------------------+---------------+----------------------+
| b32 | Reserved | RFC8949 |
+-----------------------+---------------+----------------------+
| h32 | Reserved | RFC8949 |
+-----------------------+---------------+----------------------+
| b64 | Reserved | RFC8949 |
+-----------------------+---------------+----------------------+
| false | Reserved | RFC-XXXX |
+-----------------------+---------------+----------------------+
| true | Reserved | RFC-XXXX |
+-----------------------+---------------+----------------------+
| null | Reserved | RFC-XXXX |
+-----------------------+---------------+----------------------+
| undefined | Reserved | RFC-XXXX |
+-----------------------+---------------+----------------------+
| dt | Date/Time | RFC-XXXX |
+-----------------------+---------------+----------------------+
| ip | IP Address/ | RFC-XXXX |
| | Prefix | |
+-----------------------+---------------+----------------------+
| hash | Cryptographic | RFC-XXXX |
| | Hash | |
+-----------------------+---------------+----------------------+
| cri | Constrained | RFC-XXXX, |
| | Resource | [I-D.ietf-core-href] |
| | Identifier | |
+-----------------------+---------------+----------------------+
Table 8: Initial Content of Application-extension Identifier
Registry
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
6.2. Encoding Indicators
IANA is requested to create an "Encoding Indicators" registry in the
newly created "Concise Diagnostic Notation" registry group
[IANA.concise-diagnostic-notation], with the policy "specification
required" (Section 4.6 of RFC 8126 [BCP26]).
The experts are instructed to be frugal in the allocation of encoding
indicators that are suggestive of generally applicable semantics,
keeping them in reserve for encoding indicator registrations that are
likely to enjoy wide use and can make good use of their conciseness.
If the expert becomes aware of encoding indicators that are deployed
and in use, they may also solicit a specification and initiate a
registration on their own if they deem such a registration can avert
potential future collisions.
Each entry in the registry must include:
Encoding Indicator:
an ASCII [STD80] string that starts with an underscore letter and
can contain zero or more underscores, letters and digits after
that (_[_A-Za-z0-9]*). No other entry in the registry can have
the same Encoding Indicator.
Description:
a brief description. This description may employ an abbreviation
of the form ai=nn, where nn is the numeric value of the field
_additional information_, the low-order 5 bits of the initial byte
(see Section 3 of RFC 8949 [STD94]).
Change Controller:
(see Section 2.3 of RFC 8126 [BCP26])
Reference:
a reference document that provides a description of the
application-extension identifier
The initial content of the registry is shown in Table 9; all initial
entries have the Change Controller "IETF".
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
+====================+===================+===========+
| Encoding Indicator | Description | Reference |
+====================+===================+===========+
| _ | Indefinite Length | RFC8949, |
| | Encoding (ai=31) | RFC-XXXX |
+--------------------+-------------------+-----------+
| _i | ai=0 to ai=23 | RFC-XXXX |
+--------------------+-------------------+-----------+
| _0 | ai=24 | RFC8949, |
| | | RFC-XXXX |
+--------------------+-------------------+-----------+
| _1 | ai=25 | RFC8949, |
| | | RFC-XXXX |
+--------------------+-------------------+-----------+
| _2 | ai=26 | RFC8949, |
| | | RFC-XXXX |
+--------------------+-------------------+-----------+
| _3 | ai=27 | RFC8949, |
| | | RFC-XXXX |
+--------------------+-------------------+-----------+
| _4 | Reserved (for | RFC-XXXX |
| | ai=28) | |
+--------------------+-------------------+-----------+
| _5 | Reserved (for | RFC-XXXX |
| | ai=29) | |
+--------------------+-------------------+-----------+
| _6 | Reserved (for | RFC-XXXX |
| | ai=30) | |
+--------------------+-------------------+-----------+
| _7 | Reserved (see _) | RFC8949, |
| | | RFC-XXXX |
+--------------------+-------------------+-----------+
Table 9: Initial Content of Encoding Indicator
Registry
| As the "Reference" column reflects, all the encoding indicators
| initially registered are already defined in Section 8.1 of RFC
| 8949 [STD94], with the exception of _i, which is defined in
| Section 5.1 of the present document.
6.3. Media Type
IANA is requested to add the following Media-Type to the "Media
Types" registry [IANA.media-types].
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
+======+=================+=======================+
| Name | Template | Reference |
+======+=================+=======================+
| cdn | application/cdn | RFC-XXXX, Section 6.3 |
+------+-----------------+-----------------------+
Table 10: New Media Type application/cdn
Type name: application
Subtype name: cdn
Required parameters: N/A
Optional parameters: N/A
Encoding considerations: binary (UTF-8)
Security considerations: Section 7 of RFC XXXX
Interoperability considerations: none
Published specification: Section 6.3 of RFC XXXX
Applications that use this media type: Tools interchanging a human-
readable form of CBOR
Fragment identifier considerations: The syntax and semantics of
fragment identifiers is as specified for "application/cbor". (At
publication of RFC XXXX, there is no fragment identification
syntax defined for "application/cbor".)
Additional information:
Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A
Magic number(s): N/A
File extension(s): .cdn
Macintosh file type code(s): N/A
Person & email address to contact for further information: CBOR WG
mailing list (cbor@ietf.org), or IETF Applications and Real-Time
Area (art@ietf.org)
Intended usage: LIMITED USE
Restrictions on usage: Concise diagnostic notation represents CBOR
data items, which are the format intended for actual interchange.
The media type application/cdn is intended to be used within
documents about CBOR data items, in diagnostics for human
consumption, and in other representations of CBOR data items that
are necessarily text-based such as in configuration files or other
data edited by humans, often under source-code control.
Author/Change controller: IETF
Provisional registration: no
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
6.4. Content-Format
IANA is requested to register a Content-Format number in the "CoAP
Content-Formats" sub-registry, within the "Constrained RESTful
Environments (CoRE) Parameters" Registry [IANA.core-parameters], as
follows:
+=================+================+======+===========+
| Content-Type | Content Coding | ID | Reference |
+=================+================+======+===========+
| application/cdn | - | TBD1 | RFC-XXXX |
+-----------------+----------------+------+-----------+
Table 11: New Content-Format for application/cdn
TBD1 is to be assigned from the space 256..9999, according to the
procedure "IETF Review or IESG Approval", preferably a number less
than 1000.
6.5. Stand-in Tags
// RFC-Editor: This document uses the CPA (code point allocation)
// convention described in [I-D.bormann-cbor-draft-numbers]. For
// each usage of the term "CPA", please remove the prefix "CPA" from
// the indicated value and replace the residue with the value
// assigned by IANA; perform an analogous substitution for all other
// occurrences of the prefix "CPA" in the document. Finally, please
// remove this note.
In the "CBOR Tags" registry [IANA.cbor-tags], IANA is requested to
assign the tags in Table 12 from the "specification required" space
(suggested assignments: 888 and 999), with the present document as
the specification reference.
+========+===========+==================================+===========+
| Tag | Data | Semantics | Reference |
| | Item | | |
+========+===========+==================================+===========+
| CPA888 | null or | Diagnostic Notation Ellipsis | RFC-XXXX |
| | array | | |
+--------+-----------+----------------------------------+-----------+
| CPA999 | array | Diagnostic Notation | RFC-XXXX |
| | | Unresolved Application-Extension | |
+--------+-----------+----------------------------------+-----------+
Table 12: Values for Tags
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
7. Security considerations
The security considerations of [STD94] and [RFC8610] apply.
The CDN specification provides two explicit extension points,
application-extension identifiers (Section 6.1) and encoding
indicators (Section 6.2). Extensions introduced this way can have
their own security considerations (see, e.g., Section 5 of
[I-D.ietf-cbor-edn-e-ref]). When implementing tools that support the
use of CDN extensions, the implementer needs to be careful not to
inadvertently introduce a vector for an attacker to invoke extensions
not planned for by the tool operator, who might not have considered
security considerations of specific extensions such as those posed by
their use of dereferenceable identifiers (Section 6 of
[I-D.bormann-t2trg-deref-id]). For instance, tools might require
explicitly enabling the use of each extension that is not on an
allowlist. This task can possibly be made less onerous by combining
it with a mechanism for supplying any parameters controlling such an
extension.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[BCP14] Best Current Practice 14,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp14>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[BCP26] Best Current Practice 26,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp26>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
[C] International Organization for Standardization,
"Information technology — Programming languages — C",
Edition 5, ISO/IEC 9899:2024, October 2024,
<https://www.iso.org/standard/82075.html>. The standard
is widely known as C23. Its technical content is also
available via
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3220.pdf
(https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/
n3220.pdf).
[Cplusplus]
International Organization for Standardization,
"Programming languages — C++", Edition 7, ISO/
IEC 14882:2024, October 2024,
<https://www.iso.org/standard/83626.html>. The standard
is widely known as C++23. Its technical content is also
available via https://open-
std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/n4950.pdf
(https://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/
n4950.pdf).
[I-D.ietf-core-href]
Bormann, C. and H. Birkholz, "Constrained Resource
Identifiers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-core-href-30, 21 November 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
href-30>.
[IANA.cbor-tags]
IANA, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags>.
[IANA.core-parameters]
IANA, "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE)
Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters>.
[IANA.cose]
IANA, "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose>.
[IANA.media-types]
IANA, "Media Types",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types>.
[IEEE754] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", IEEE
Std 754-2019, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2019.8766229,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8766229>.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3339>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986>.
[RFC3987] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, DOI 10.17487/RFC3987,
January 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3987>.
[RFC7405] Kyzivat, P., "Case-Sensitive String Support in ABNF",
RFC 7405, DOI 10.17487/RFC7405, December 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7405>.
[RFC8742] Bormann, C., "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
Sequences", RFC 8742, DOI 10.17487/RFC8742, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8742>.
[RFC9164] Richardson, M. and C. Bormann, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR) Tags for IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses and
Prefixes", RFC 9164, DOI 10.17487/RFC9164, December 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9164>.
[RFC9485] Bormann, C. and T. Bray, "I-Regexp: An Interoperable
Regular Expression Format", RFC 9485,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9485, October 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9485>.
[STD63] Internet Standard 63,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std63>.
At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following:
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>.
[STD68] Internet Standard 68,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std68>.
At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following:
Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
[STD80] Internet Standard 80,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std80>.
At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following:
Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80,
RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>.
[STD94] Internet Standard 94,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std94>.
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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
8.2. Informative References
[ABNFROB] "PEG-parsing using ABNF grammars (via treetop)", n.d.,
<https://github.com/cabo/abnftt>.
[CDN-WIKI] "CDN Wiki", n.d., <https://github.com/cbor-wg/edn/wiki>.
[I-D.bormann-cbor-numbers]
Bormann, C., "On Numbers in CBOR", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-bormann-cbor-numbers-03, 1 March
2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
bormann-cbor-numbers-03>.
[I-D.bormann-t2trg-deref-id]
Bormann, C. and C. Amsüss, "The "dereferenceable
identifier" pattern", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-bormann-t2trg-deref-id-07, 24 February 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bormann-
t2trg-deref-id-07>.
[I-D.ietf-cbor-edn-e-ref]
Bormann, C., "External References to Values in CBOR
Diagnostic Notation (EDN)", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-cbor-edn-e-ref-03, 1 March 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cbor-
edn-e-ref-03>.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4648>.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7049>.
[RFC7493] Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7493>.
[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/rfc/rfc8610>.
[RFC9165] Bormann, C., "Additional Control Operators for the Concise
Data Definition Language (CDDL)", RFC 9165,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9165, December 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9165>.
[RFC9290] Fossati, T. and C. Bormann, "Concise Problem Details for
Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) APIs", RFC 9290,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9290, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9290>.
[RFC9512] Polli, R., Wilde, E., and E. Aro, "YAML Media Type",
RFC 9512, DOI 10.17487/RFC9512, February 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9512>.
[RFC9682] Bormann, C., "Updates to the Concise Data Definition
Language (CDDL) Grammar", RFC 9682, DOI 10.17487/RFC9682,
November 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9682>.
[RFC9741] Bormann, C., "Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL):
Additional Control Operators for the Conversion and
Processing of Text", RFC 9741, DOI 10.17487/RFC9741, March
2025, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9741>.
[STD90] Internet Standard 90,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std90>.
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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
[YAML] Ben-Kiki, O., Evans, C., and I. döt Net, "YAML Ain't
Markup Language (YAML™) Version 1.2", Revision 1.2.2, 1
October 2021, <https://yaml.org/spec/1.2.2/>.
Appendix A. CDN and CDDL
This appendix is for information.
CDN was designed as a language to provide a human-readable
representation of an instance, i.e., a single CBOR data item or CBOR
sequence. CDDL was designed as a language to describe an (often
large) set of such instances (which itself constitutes a language),
in the form of a _data definition_ or _grammar_ (or sometimes called
_schema_).
The two languages share some similarities, not the least because they
have mutually inspired each other. But they have very different
roots:
* CDN syntax is an extension to JSON syntax [STD90].
(Any (interoperable) JSON text is also valid CDN.)
* CDDL syntax is inspired by ABNF's syntax [STD68].
For engineers that are using both CDN and CDDL, it is easy to write
"CDDLisms" or "CDNisms" into their drafts that are meant to be in the
other language. (This is one more of the many motivations to always
validate formal language instances with tools.)
Important differences include:
* Comment syntax. CDDL inherits ABNF's semicolon-delimited end of
line characters, while CDN finds nothing in JSON that could be
inherited here. Inspired by JavaScript, CDN simplifies
JavaScript's copy of the original C comment syntax to be delimited
by single slashes (where line breaks are not of interest); it also
adds traditional C-style inline comments (/* ... */) and end-of-
line comments that start with # or //.
CDN:
{ / alg / 1: -7 / ECDSA 256 / }
{ 1: # alg
-7 # ECDSA 256
}
CDDL: ? 1 => int / tstr, ; algorithm identifier
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
* Syntax for tags. CDDL's tag syntax is part of the system for
referring to CBOR's fundamentals (the major type 6, in this case)
and (with [RFC9682]) allows specifying the actual tag number
separately, while CDN's tag syntax is a simple decimal number and
a pair of parentheses.
CDN:
98([h'', # empty encoded protected header
{}, # empty unprotected header
... # rest elided here
])
CDDL: COSE_Sign_Tagged = #6.98(COSE_Sign)
* Embedded CBOR. CDN has a special syntax to describe the content
of byte strings that are encoded CBOR data items. CDDL can
specify these with a control operator, which looks very different.
CDN:
98([<< {/alg/ 1: -7 /ECDSA 256/} >>, # == h'a10126'
... # rest elided here
])
CDDL: serialized_map = bytes .cbor header_map
List of Figures
Figure 1: Overall ABNF Definition of CDN
Figure 2: Common Rules Used in app-extension ABNF grammars
Figure 3: ABNF Definition of Hexadecimal Representation of a Byte
String
Figure 4: ABNF definition of Base64 Representation of a Byte String
Figure 5: ABNF Definition of RFC3339 Representation of a Date/Time
Figure 6: ABNF Definition of Textual Representation of an IP Address
Figure 7: ABNF Definition of URI Representation of a CRI
Figure 8: Glue ABNF for Integrated DT Parser
Figure 9: ABNF Definitions Useful for Integrated Extension Parsers
Figure 10: ABNF Definitions Useful for Raw String Integrated
Extension Parsers
Figure 11: ABNF Definition for Integrated Hex Parser
Figure 12: ABNF Definition for Integrated Base64 Parser
Figure 13: ABNF Definition for Integrated Raw String Hex Parser
Figure 14: ABNF Definition for Integrated Raw String Base64 Parser
List of Tables
Table 1: Examples of Encoding Indicators for Different Data Items
(mt = major type)
Bormann Expires 19 November 2026 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) May 2026
Table 2: Example Sets of Equivalent Notations for Some Numbers
Table 3: Encoding indicators on floating point values
Table 4: dt and DT literals vs. plain CDN
Table 5: ip and IP literals vs. plain CDN
Table 6: hash literals vs. plain CDN
Table 7: App-prefix Values Defined in this Document
Table 8: Initial Content of Application-extension Identifier
Registry
Table 9: Initial Content of Encoding Indicator Registry
Table 10: New Media Type application/cdn
Table 11: New Content-Format for application/cdn
Table 12: Values for Tags
Acknowledgements
The concept of application-oriented extensions to diagnostic
notation, as well as the definition for the "dt" extension, were
inspired by the CoRAL work by Klaus Hartke.
(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 19 November 2026 [Page 69]