Representing CoRE Formats in JSON and CBOR
draft-ietf-core-links-json-04

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (core WG)
Last updated 2015-11-01
Replaces draft-li-core-cbor-equivalents, draft-bormann-core-links-json
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
CoRE Working Group                                                 K. Li
Internet-Draft                                             Alibaba Group
Intended status: Standards Track                               A. Rahman
Expires: May 4, 2016                                        InterDigital
                                                         C. Bormann, Ed.
                                                 Universitaet Bremen TZI
                                                       November 01, 2015

               Representing CoRE Formats in JSON and CBOR
                     draft-ietf-core-links-json-04

Abstract

   JavaScript Object Notation, JSON (RFC7159) is a text-based data
   format which is popular for Web based data exchange.  Concise Binary
   Object Representation, CBOR (RFC7049) is a binary data format which
   has been optimized for data exchange for the Internet of Things
   (IoT).  For many IoT scenarios, CBOR formats will be preferred since
   it can help decrease transmission payload sizes as well as
   implementation code sizes compared to other data formats.

   Web Linking (RFC5988) provides a way to represent links between Web
   resources as well as the relations expressed by them and attributes
   of such a link.  In constrained networks, a collection of Web links
   can be exchanged in the CoRE link format (RFC6690).  Outside of
   constrained environments, it may be useful to represent these
   collections of Web links in JSON, and similarly, inside constrained
   environments, in CBOR.  This specification defines a common format
   for this.

   Group Communication for the Constrained Application Protocol
   (RFC7390) defines a number of JSON formats for controlling
   communication between groups of nodes employing the Constrained
   Application Protocol (CoAP).  In a similar vein, this specification
   defines CBOR variants of these formats.

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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Li, et al.                 Expires May 4, 2016                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                Links-in-JSON                November 2015

   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 May 4, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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
   (http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Objectives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Web Links in JSON and CBOR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Additional Encoding Step for CBOR . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.4.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.4.1.  Link Format to CBOR Example . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.4.2.  Link Format in JSON to CBOR Example . . . . . . . . .   9
   3.  Group Communication Management Objects in CBOR  . . . . . . .  11
     3.1.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.2.  Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.3.  Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.4.  Group Communication Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
Show full document text