Skip to main content

Concise Problem Details For CoAP APIs
draft-ietf-core-problem-details-08

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (core WG)
Authors Thomas Fossati , Carsten Bormann
Last updated 2022-08-04 (Latest revision 2022-07-06)
Replaces draft-fossati-core-coap-problem
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats
Reviews
OPSDIR Telechat Review Incomplete, due 2022-06-14
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Jaime Jimenez
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2022-07-07
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Francesca Palombini
Send notices to jaime@iki.fi
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack
RFC Editor RFC Editor state AUTH48
Details
draft-ietf-core-problem-details-08
CoRE Working Group                                            T. Fossati
Internet-Draft                                                       arm
Intended status: Standards Track                              C. Bormann
Expires: 7 January 2023                           Universität Bremen TZI
                                                             6 July 2022

                 Concise Problem Details For CoAP APIs
                   draft-ietf-core-problem-details-08

Abstract

   This document defines a concise "problem detail" as a way to carry
   machine-readable details of errors in a REST response to avoid the
   need to define new error response formats for REST APIs for
   constrained environments.  The format is inspired by, but intended to
   be more concise than, the Problem Details for HTTP APIs defined in
   RFC 7807.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-problem-details/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the Constrained RESTful
   Environments Working Group mailing list (mailto:core@ietf.org), which
   is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/core-wg/core-problem-details.

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."

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 7 January 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Terminology and Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Basic Problem Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Extending Concise Problem Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Standard Problem Detail Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.1.1.  Standard Problem Detail Entry: Unprocessed CoAP
               Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Custom Problem Detail Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.1.  Standard Problem Detail Key registry  . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.2.  Custom Problem Detail Key registry  . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.3.  Media Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.4.  Content-Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.5.  CBOR Tag 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Appendix A.  Language-Tagged Strings  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     A.1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     A.2.  Detailed Semantics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     A.3.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Appendix B.  Interworking with RFC 7807 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

1.  Introduction

   REST response status information such as CoAP response codes
   (Section 5.9 of [RFC7252]) is sometimes not sufficient to convey
   enough information about an error to be helpful.  This specification
   defines a simple and extensible framework to define CBOR [STD94] data
   items to suit this purpose.  It is designed to be reused by REST
   APIs, which can identify distinct "shapes" of these data items
   specific to their needs.  Thus, API clients can be informed of both
   the high-level error class (using the response code) and the finer-
   grained details of the problem (using the vocabulary defined here).
   This pattern of communication is illustrated in Figure 1.

                    .--------.          .--------.
                    |  CoAP  |          |  CoAP  |
                    | Client |          | Server |
                    '----+---'          '---+----'
                         |                  |
                         | Request          |
                         o----------------->|
                         |                  | (failure)
                         |<-----------------o
                         |   Error Response |
                         |      with a CBOR |
                         | data item giving |
                         |  Problem Details |
                         |                  |

                Figure 1: Problem Details: Example with CoAP

   The framework presented is largely inspired by the Problem Details
   for HTTP APIs defined in [RFC7807].  Appendix B discusses
   applications where interworking with [RFC7807] is required.

1.1.  Terminology and Requirements Language

   The terminology from [RFC7252], [STD94], and [RFC8610] applies; in
   particular CBOR diagnostic notation is defined in Section 8 of
   [STD94] and Appendix G of [RFC8610].  Readers are also expected to be
   familiar with the terminology from [RFC7807].

   In this document, the structure of data is specified in CDDL
   [RFC8610] [RFC9165].

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

   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
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Basic Problem Details

   A Concise Problem Details data item is a CBOR data item with the
   following structure (rules named starting with tag38 are defined in
   Appendix A):

   problem-details = non-empty<{
     ? &(title: -1) => oltext
     ? &(detail: -2) => oltext
     ? &(instance: -3) => ~uri
     ? &(response-code: -4) => uint .size 1
     ? &(base-uri: -5) => ~uri
     ? &(base-lang: -6) => tag38-ltag
     ? &(base-rtl: -7) => tag38-direction
     standard-problem-detail-entries
     custom-problem-detail-entries
   }>

   standard-problem-detail-entries = (
     * nint => any
   )

   custom-problem-detail-entries = (
     * (uint/~uri) => { + any => any }
   )

   non-empty<M> = (M) .and ({ + any => any })

   oltext = text / tag38

          Figure 2: Structure of Concise Problem Details Data Item

   (Examples of elaborated Concise Problem Details data items can be
   found later in the document, e.g., Figure 3.)

   A number of problem detail entries, the Standard Problem Detail
   entries, are predefined (more predefined details can be registered,
   see Section 3.1).

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

   Note that, unlike [RFC7807], Concise Problem Details data items have
   no explicit "problem type".  Instead, the category (or, one could
   say, Gestalt) of the problem can be understood from the shape of the
   problem details offered.  We talk of a "problem shape" for short.

   The title (key -1):
      A short, human-readable summary of the problem shape.  Beyond the
      shape of the problem, it is not intended to summarize all the
      specific information given with the problem details.  For
      instance, the summary might include that an account does not have
      enough money for a transaction to succeed, but not the detail
      information such as the account number, how much money that
      account has, and how much would be needed.

   The detail (key -2):
      A human-readable explanation specific to this occurrence of the
      problem.

   The instance (key -3):
      A URI reference that identifies the specific occurrence of the
      problem.  It may or may not yield further information if
      dereferenced.

   The response-code (key -4):
      The CoAP response code (Sections 5.9 and 12.1.2 of [RFC7252])
      generated by the origin server for this occurrence of the problem.

   The base-uri (key -5):
      The base URI (Section 5.1 of [STD66]) that should be used to
      resolve relative URI references embedded in this Concise Problem
      Details data item.

   The base-lang (key -6):
      The language-tag (tag38-ltag) that applies to the presentation of
      unadorned text strings (not using tag 38) in this Concise Problem
      Details data item, see Appendix A.

   The base-rtl (key -7):
      The writing-direction (tag38-direction) that applies to the
      presentation of unadorned text strings (not using tag 38) in this
      Concise Problem Details data item, see Appendix A.

   Both "title" and "detail" can use either an unadorned CBOR text
   string (text) or a language-tagged text string (tag38); see
   Appendix A for the definition of the latter.  Language tag and
   writing direction information for unadorned text strings are intended
   to be obtained from context; if that context needs to be saved or
   forwarded with a Concise Problem Details data item, "base-lang" and

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

   "base-rtl" can be used for that.  If no such (explicitly saved or
   implicit) context information is available, unadorned text is
   interpreted with language-tag "en" and writing-direction "false"
   (ltr).

   The "title" string is advisory and included to give consumers a
   shorthand for the category (problem shape) of the error encountered.

   The "detail" member, if present, ought to focus on helping the client
   correct the problem, rather than giving extensive server-side
   debugging information.  Consumers SHOULD NOT parse the "detail"
   member for information; extensions (see Section 3) are more suitable
   and less error-prone ways to obtain such information.  Note that the
   "instance" URI reference may be relative; this means that it must be
   resolved relative to the representation's base URI, as per Section 5
   of [STD66].

   The "response-code" member, if present, is only advisory; it conveys
   the CoAP response code used for the convenience of the consumer.
   Generators MUST use the same response code here as in the actual CoAP
   response; the latter is needed to assure that generic CoAP software
   that does not understand the problem-details format still behaves
   correctly.  Consumers can use the response-code member to determine
   what the original response code used by the generator was, in cases
   where it has been changed (e.g., by an intermediary or cache), and
   when message bodies persist without CoAP information (e.g., in an
   events log or analytics database).  Generic CoAP software will still
   use the CoAP response code.  To support the use case of message body
   persistence without support by the problem-details generator, the
   entity that persists the Concise Problem Details data item can copy
   over the CoAP response code that it received on the CoAP level.  Note
   that the "response-code" value is a numeric representation of the
   actual code (see Section 3 of [RFC7252]), so it does not take the
   usual presentation form that resembles an HTTP status code -- 4.04
   Not found is represented by the number 132.

   The "base-uri" member is usually not present in the initial request-
   response communication as it can be inferred as per Section 5.1.3 of
   [STD66].  An entity that stores a Concise Problem Details data item
   or otherwise makes it available for consumers without this context
   might add in a base-uri member to allow those consumers to perform
   resolution of any relative URI references embedded in the data item.

3.  Extending Concise Problem Details

   This specification defines a generic problem details container with
   only a minimal set of attributes to make it usable.

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

   It is expected that applications will extend the base format by
   defining new attributes.

   These new attributes fall into two categories: generic and
   application specific.

   Generic attributes will be allocated in the standard-problem-detail-
   entries slot according to the registration procedure defined in
   Section 3.1.

   Application-specific attributes will be allocated in the custom-
   problem-detail-entries slot according to the procedure described in
   Section 3.2.

   Consumers of a Concise Problem Details data item MUST ignore any
   Standard or Custom Problem Detail entries, or keys inside the Custom
   Problem Detail entries, that they do not recognize ("ignore-unknown
   rule"); this allows problem details to evolve.  When storing the data
   item for future use or forwarding it to other consumers, it is
   strongly RECOMMENDED to retain the unrecognized entries; exceptions
   might be when storage/forwarding occurs in a different format/
   protocol that cannot accommodate them, or when the storage/forwarding
   function needs to filter out privacy-sensitive information and for
   that needs to assume unrecognized entries might be privacy-sensitive.

3.1.  Standard Problem Detail Entries

   Beyond the Standard Problem Detail keys defined in Figure 2,
   additional Standard Problem Detail keys can be registered for use in
   the standard-problem-detail-entries slot (see Section 6.1).

   Standard Problem Detail keys are negative integers, so they can never
   conflict with Custom Problem Detail keys defined for a specific
   application domain (which are unsigned integers or URIs.)

   In summary, the keys for Standard Problem Detail entries are in a
   global namespace that is not specific to a particular application
   domain.

3.1.1.  Standard Problem Detail Entry: Unprocessed CoAP Option

   Section 2 provides a number of generally applicable Standard Problem
   Detail Entries.  The present section both registers another useful
   Standard Problem Detail entry and serves as an example of a Standard
   Problem Detail Entry registration, in the registration template
   format that would be ready for registration.

   |  Key Value:  TBD (assigned at registration)

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

   |  
   |  Name:  unprocessed-coap-option
   |  
   |  CDDL type:  one-or-more<uint>, where
   |  
   |     one-or-more<T> = T / [ 2* T ]
   |  
   |  Brief description:  Option number(s) of CoAP option(s) that were
   |     not understood
   |  
   |  Specification reference:  Section 3.1.1 of RFC XXXX

   // RFC Editor: please replace RFC XXXX with the RFC number of this
   // RFC and remove this note.

   The specification of the Standard Problem Detail entry referenced by
   the above registration template follows:

   The Standard Problem Detail entry unprocessed-coap-option provides
   the option number(s) of CoAP option(s) present in the request that
   could not be processed by the server.

   This may be a critical option that the server is unaware of, or an
   option the server is aware of but could not process (and chose not
   to, or was not allowed to, ignore it).

   The Concise Problem Details data item including this Standard Problem
   Detail Entry can be used in fulfillment of the "SHOULD" requirement
   in Section 5.4.1 of [RFC7252].

   Several option numbers may be given in a list (in no particular
   order), without any guarantee that the list is a complete
   representation of all the problems in the request (as the server
   might have stopped processing already at one of the problematic
   options).  If an option with the given number was repeated, there is
   no indication which of the values caused the error.

   Clients need to expect seeing options in the list they did not send
   in the request; this can happen if the request traversed a proxy that
   added the option but did not act on the problem details response
   being returned by the origin server.

   Note that for a few special values of unprocessed CoAP options (such
   as Accept or Proxy-Uri), there are special response codes (4.06 Not
   Acceptable, 5.05 Proxying Not Supported, respectively) to be sent
   instead of 4.02 Bad Option.

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

3.2.  Custom Problem Detail Entries

   Applications may extend the Problem Details data item with additional
   entries to convey additional, application-specific information.

   Such new entries are allocated in the custom-problem-detail-entries
   slot, and carry a nested map specific to that application.  The map
   key can either be an (absolute!)  URI (under control of the entity
   defining this extension), or an unsigned integer.  Only the latter
   needs to be registered (Section 6.2).

   Within the nested map, any number of attributes can be given for a
   single extension.  The semantics of each custom attribute MUST be
   described in the documentation for the extension; for extensions that
   are registered (i.e., are identified by an unsigned int) that
   documentation goes along with the registration.

   The unsigned integer form allows a more compact representation.  In
   exchange, authors are expected to comply with the required
   registration and documentation process.  In comparison, the URI form
   is less space-efficient but requires no registration.  It is
   therefore useful for experimenting during the development cycle and
   for applications deployed in environments where producers and
   consumers of Concise Problem Details are more tightly integrated.
   (The URI form thus covers the potential need we might otherwise have
   for a "private use" range for the unsigned integers.)

   Note that the URI given for the extension is for identification
   purposes only and, even if dereferenceable in principle, it MUST NOT
   be dereferenced in the normal course of handling problem details
   (i.e., outside diagnostic/debugging procedures involving humans).

   Figure 3 shows an example (in CBOR diagnostic notation) of a custom
   extension using a (made-up) URI as custom-problem-detail-entries key.

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

      {
        / title /         -1: "title of the error",
        / detail /        -2: "detailed information about the error",
        / instance /      -3: "coaps://pd.example/FA317434",
        / response-code / -4: 128, / 4.00 /

        "tag:3gpp.org,2022-03:TS29112": {
          / cause /  0: "machine-readable error cause",
          / invalidParams / 1: [
            [
              / param / "first parameter name",
              / reason / "must be a positive integer"
            ],
            [
              / param / "second parameter name"
            ]
          ],
          / supportedFeatures / 2: "d34db33f"
        }
      }

                  Figure 3: Example Extension with URI key

   Obviously, an SDO like 3GPP can also easily register such a custom
   problem detail entry to receive a more efficient unsigned integer
   key; Figure 4 shows how the same example would look like using a
   (made-up) registered unsigned int as custom-problem-detail-entries
   key:

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

     {
       / title /         -1: "title of the error",
       / detail /        -2: "detailed information about the error",
       / instance /      -3: "coaps://pd.example/FA317434",
       / response-code / -4: 128, / 4.00 /

       /4711 is made-up example key that is not actually registered:/
       4711: {
         / cause /  0: "machine-readable error cause",
         / invalidParams / 1: [
           [
             / param / "first parameter name",
             / reason / "must be a positive integer"
           ],
           [
             / param / "second parameter name"
           ]
         ],
         / supportedFeatures / 2: "d34db33f"
       }
     }

       Figure 4: Example Extension with unsigned int (registered) key

   In summary, the keys for the maps used inside Custom Problem Detail
   entries are defined specifically to the identifier of that Custom
   Problem Detail entry, the documentation of which defines these
   internal entries, typically chosen to address a given application
   domain.

   When there is a need to evolve a Custom Problem Detail entry
   definition, the "ignore-unknown rule" discussed in the introduction
   to Section 3 provides an easy way to include additional information.
   The assumption is that this is done in a backward and forward
   compatible way.  Sometimes, Custom Problem Detail entries may need to
   evolve in a way where forward compatibility by applying the "ignore-
   unknown rule" would not be appropriate: e.g., when adding a "must-
   understand" member, which can only be ignored at the peril of
   misunderstanding the Concise Problem Details data item ("false
   interoperability").  In this case, a new Custom Problem Detail key
   can simply be registered for this case, keeping the old key backward
   and forward compatible.

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

4.  Privacy Considerations

   Problem details may unintentionally disclose information.  This can
   lead to both privacy and security problems.  See Section 5 for more
   details that apply to both domains; particular attention needs to be
   given to unintentionally disclosing Personally Identifiable
   Information (PII).

5.  Security Considerations

   Concise Problem Details can contain URIs that are not intended to be
   dereferenced (Section 3.2, Paragraph 5).  One reason is that
   dereferencing these can lead to information disclosure (tracking).
   Information disclosure can also be caused by URIs in problem details
   that _are_ intended for dereferencing, e.g., the "instance" URI.
   Implementations need to consider which component of a client should
   perform the dereferencing, and which servers are trusted with serving
   them.  In any case, the security considerations of Section 7 of
   [STD66] apply.

   The security and privacy considerations outlined in Section 5 of
   [RFC7807] apply in full.  While these are phrased in terms of
   security considerations for new RFC 7807 problem types, they equally
   apply to the problem detail entry definitions used here Section 3; in
   summary: both when defining new detail entries, and when actually
   generating a Concise Problem Details data item, care needs to be
   taken that they do not leak sensitive information.  Entities storing
   or forwarding Concise Problem Details data items need to consider
   whether this leads to information being transferred out of the
   context within which access to sensitive information was acceptable.
   See also Section 3, Paragraph 6 (the last paragraph of the
   introduction to that section).  Privacy-sensitive information in the
   problem details SHOULD NOT be obscured in ways that might lead to
   misclassification as non-sensitive (e.g., by base64-encoding).

6.  IANA Considerations

   // RFC Editor: please replace RFC XXXX with the RFC number of this
   // RFC and remove this note.

6.1.  Standard Problem Detail Key registry

   This specification defines a new sub-registry for Standard Problem
   Detail Keys in the CoRE Parameters registry [IANA.core-parameters],
   with the policy "specification required" (Section 4.6 of [RFC8126]).

   Each entry in the registry must include:

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

   Key value:
      a negative integer to be used as the value of the key

   Name:
      a name that could be used in implementations for the key

   CDDL type:
      type of the data associated with the key in CDDL notation

   Brief description:
      a brief description

   Change Controller:
      (see Section 2.3 of [RFC8126])

   Reference:
      a reference document

   The expert is requested to assign the shortest key values (1+0 and
   1+1 encoding) to registrations that are likely to enjoy wide use and
   can benefit from short encodings.

   To be immediately useful in CDDL and programming language contexts, a
   name consists of a lower-case ASCII letter (a-z) and zero or more
   additional ASCII characters that are either lower-case letters,
   digits, or a hyphen-minus, i.e., it matches [a-z][-a-z0-9]*. As with
   the key values, names need to be unique.

   The specification in the reference document needs to provide a
   description of the Standard Problem Detail entry, replicating the
   CDDL description in "CDDL type", and describing the semantics of the
   presence of this entry and the semantics of the value given with it.

   Initial entries in this sub-registry are as follows:

   +=======+==============+=================+=============+===========+
   | Key   | Name         | CDDL Type       | Brief       | Reference |
   | value |              |                 | description |           |
   +=======+==============+=================+=============+===========+
   | -1    | title        | text / tag38    | short,      | RFC XXXX  |
   |       |              |                 | human-      |           |
   |       |              |                 | readable    |           |
   |       |              |                 | summary of  |           |
   |       |              |                 | the problem |           |
   |       |              |                 | shape       |           |
   +-------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+-----------+
   | -2    | detail       | text / tag38    | human-      | RFC XXXX  |
   |       |              |                 | readable    |           |

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

   |       |              |                 | explanation |           |
   |       |              |                 | specific to |           |
   |       |              |                 | this        |           |
   |       |              |                 | occurrence  |           |
   |       |              |                 | of the      |           |
   |       |              |                 | problem     |           |
   +-------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+-----------+
   | -3    | instance     | ~uri            | URI         | RFC XXXX  |
   |       |              |                 | reference   |           |
   |       |              |                 | identifying |           |
   |       |              |                 | specific    |           |
   |       |              |                 | occurrence  |           |
   |       |              |                 | of the      |           |
   |       |              |                 | problem     |           |
   +-------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+-----------+
   | -4    | response-    | uint .size 1    | CoAP        | RFC XXXX  |
   |       | code         |                 | response    |           |
   |       |              |                 | code        |           |
   +-------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+-----------+
   | -5    | base-uri     | ~uri            | Base URI    | RFC XXXX  |
   +-------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+-----------+
   | -6    | base-lang    | tag38-ltag      | Base        | RFC XXXX  |
   |       |              |                 | language    |           |
   |       |              |                 | tag (see    |           |
   |       |              |                 | Appendix A) |           |
   +-------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+-----------+
   | -7    | base-rtl     | tag38-direction | Base        | RFC XXXX  |
   |       |              |                 | writing     |           |
   |       |              |                 | direction   |           |
   |       |              |                 | (see        |           |
   |       |              |                 | Appendix A) |           |
   +-------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+-----------+
   | TBD   | unprocessed- | one-or-         | Option      | RFC XXXX, |
   |       | coap-option  | more<uint>      | number(s)   | Section   |
   |       |              |                 | of CoAP     | 3.1.1     |
   |       |              |                 | option(s)   |           |
   |       |              |                 | that were   |           |
   |       |              |                 | not         |           |
   |       |              |                 | understood  |           |
   +-------+--------------+-----------------+-------------+-----------+

   Table 1: Initial Entries in the Standard Problem Detail Key registry

6.2.  Custom Problem Detail Key registry

   This specification defines a new sub-registry for Custom Problem
   Detail Keys in the CoRE Parameters registry [IANA.core-parameters],
   with the policy "expert review" (Section 4.5 of [RFC8126]).

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

   The expert is instructed to attempt making the registration
   experience as close to first-come-first-served as reasonably
   achievable, but checking that the reference document does provide a
   description as set out below.  (This requirement is a relaxed version
   of "specification required" as defined in Section 4.6 of [RFC8126].)

   Each entry in the registry must include:

   Key value:
      an unsigned integer to be used as the value of the key

   Name:
      a name that could be used in implementations for the key

   Brief description:
      a brief description

   Change Controller:
      (see Section 2.3 of [RFC8126])

   Reference:
      a reference document that provides a description of the map,
      including a CDDL description, that describes all inside keys and
      values

   The expert is requested to assign the shortest key values (1+0 and
   1+1 encoding) to registrations that are likely to enjoy wide use and
   can benefit from short encodings.

   To be immediately useful in CDDL and programming language contexts, a
   name consists of a lower-case ASCII letter (a-z) and zero or more
   additional ASCII characters that are either lower-case letters,
   digits, or a hyphen-minus, i.e., it matches [a-z][-a-z0-9]*. As with
   the key values, names need to be unique.

   Initial entries in this sub-registry are as follows:

      +=======+=============+===========================+===========+
      | Key   | Name        | Brief description         | Reference |
      | value |             |                           |           |
      +=======+=============+===========================+===========+
      | 7807  | tunnel-7807 | Carry RFC 7807 problem    | RFC XXXX, |
      |       |             | details in a Concise      | Appendix  |
      |       |             | Problem Details data item | B         |
      +-------+-------------+---------------------------+-----------+

         Table 2: Initial Entries in the Custom Problem Detail Key
                                  registry

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

6.3.  Media Type

   IANA is requested to add the following Media-Type to the "Media
   Types" registry [IANA.media-types].

   +============================+============================+=========+
   |Name                        |Template                    |Reference|
   +============================+============================+=========+
   |concise-problem-details+cbor|application/concise-problem-|RFC XXXX,|
   |                            |details+cbor                |Section  |
   |                            |                            |6.3      |
   +----------------------------+----------------------------+---------+

      Table 3: New Media Type application/concise-problem-details+cbor

   Type name:  application
   Subtype name:  concise-problem-details+cbor
   Required parameters:  N/A
   Optional parameters:  N/A
   Encoding considerations:  binary (CBOR data item)
   Security considerations:  Section 5 of RFC XXXX
   Interoperability considerations:  none
   Published specification:  Section 6.3 of RFC XXXX
   Applications that use this media type:  Clients and servers in the
      Internet of Things
   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".)
   Person & email address to contact for further information:  CoRE WG
      mailing list (core@ietf.org), or IETF Applications and Real-Time
      Area (art@ietf.org)
   Intended usage:  COMMON
   Restrictions on usage:  none
   Author/Change controller:  IETF
   Provisional registration:  no

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:

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                [Page 16]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

   +==============================+================+======+===========+
   | Content-Type                 | Content Coding | ID   | Reference |
   +==============================+================+======+===========+
   | application/concise-problem- | -              | TBD1 | RFC XXXX  |
   | details+cbor                 |                |      |           |
   +------------------------------+----------------+------+-----------+

                       Table 4: New Content-Format

   TBD1 is to be assigned from the space 256..999.

   In the registry as defined by Section 12.3 of [RFC7252] at the time
   of writing, the column "Content-Type" is called "Media type" and the
   column "Content Coding" is called "Encoding".
   // This paragraph to be removed by RFC editor.

6.5.  CBOR Tag 38

   In the registry "CBOR Tags" [IANA.cbor-tags], IANA has registered
   CBOR Tag 38.  IANA is requested to replace the reference for this
   registration with Appendix A, RFC XXXX.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [IANA.cbor-tags]
              IANA, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags",
              19 September 2013,
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags>.

   [IANA.core-parameters]
              IANA, "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE)
              Parameters", 8 June 2012,
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters>.

   [IANA.media-types]
              IANA, "Provisional Standard Media Type Registry", 20 July
              2012, <https://www.iana.org/assignments/provisional-
              standard-media-types>.

   [RFC2119]  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>.

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                [Page 17]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

   [RFC4647]  Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Matching of Language
              Tags", BCP 47, RFC 4647, DOI 10.17487/RFC4647, September
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4647>.

   [RFC5646]  Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
              Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646,
              September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646>.

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.

   [RFC7807]  Nottingham, M. and E. Wilde, "Problem Details for HTTP
              APIs", RFC 7807, DOI 10.17487/RFC7807, March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7807>.

   [RFC8126]  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>.

   [RFC8174]  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>.

   [RFC8610]  Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
              Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
              Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
              JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
              June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.

   [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/info/rfc9165>.

   [STD66]    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/info/rfc3986>.

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

7.2.  Informative References

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                [Page 18]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

   [I-D.ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis]
              Nottingham, M., Wilde, E., and S. Dalal, "Problem Details
              for HTTP APIs", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis-03, 25 May 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpapi-
              rfc7807bis-03.txt>.

   [RDF]      Cyganiak, R., Wood, D., and M. Lanthaler, "RDF 1.1
              Concepts and Abstract Syntax", W3C Recommendation, 25
              February 2014,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/>.

   [RFC4648]  Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
              Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.

   [RFC6082]  Whistler, K., Adams, G., Duerst, M., Presuhn, R., Ed., and
              J. Klensin, "Deprecating Unicode Language Tag Characters:
              RFC 2482 is Historic", RFC 6082, DOI 10.17487/RFC6082,
              November 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6082>.

   [Unicode-14.0.0]
              The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
              14.0.0", Mountain View: The Unicode Consortium,
              ISBN 978-1-936213-29-0, September 2021,
              <https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode14.0.0/>.  Note
              that while this document references a version that was
              recent at the time of writing, the statements made based
              on this version are expected to remain valid for future
              versions.

   [Unicode-14.0.0-bidi]
              The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode® Standard Annex #9 ---
              Unicode Bidirectional Algorithm", 27 August 2021,
              <https://www.unicode.org/reports/
              tr9/#Markup_And_Formatting>.  Note that while this
              document references a version that was recent at the time
              of writing, the statements made based on this version are
              expected to remain valid for future versions.

Appendix A.  Language-Tagged Strings

   This appendix serves as the archival documentation for CBOR Tag 38, a
   tag for serializing language-tagged text strings in CBOR.  The text
   of this appendix is adapted from the specification text supplied for
   its initial registration.  It has been extended to allow
   supplementing the language tag by a direction indication.

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                [Page 19]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

   As with any IANA-registered item, a specification that further
   updates this registration needs to update the reference column of the
   IANA registry (see Section 6.5).  Future specifications may update
   this appendix, other parts of this document, or both.  (When updating
   this appendix, keep in mind that applications beyond concise problem
   details may adopt the tag defined here.)  Users of this tag are
   advised to consult the registry to obtain the most recent update for
   this appendix.

A.1.  Introduction

   In some cases it is useful to specify the natural language of a text
   string.  This specification defines a tag that does just that.  One
   technology that supports language-tagged strings is the Resource
   Description Framework (RDF) [RDF].

A.2.  Detailed Semantics

   A language-tagged string in CBOR has the tag 38 and consists of an
   array with a length of 2 or 3.

   The first element is a well-formed language tag under Best Current
   Practice 47 ([RFC5646] and [RFC4647]), represented as a UTF-8 text
   string (major type 3).

   The second element is an arbitrary UTF-8 text string (major type 3).
   Both the language tag and the arbitrary string can optionally be
   annotated with CBOR tags; this is not shown in the CDDL below.

   The optional third element, if present, represents a ternary value
   that indicates a direction, as follows:

   *  false: left-to-right direction ("ltr").  The text is expected to
      be displayed with left-to-right base direction if standalone, and
      isolated with left-to-right direction (as if enclosed in LRI ...
      PDI or equivalent, see [Unicode-14.0.0-bidi]) in the context of a
      longer string or text.

   *  true: right-to-left direction ("rtl").  The text is expected to be
      displayed with right-to-left base direction if standalone, and
      isolated with right-to-left direction (as if enclosed in RLI ...
      PDI or equivalent, see [Unicode-14.0.0-bidi]) in the context of a
      longer string or text.

   *  null indicates that no indication is made about the direction
      ("auto"), enabling an internationalization library to make an
      auto-detection decision such as treating the string as if enclosed
      in FSI ... PDI or equivalent, see [Unicode-14.0.0-bidi].

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                [Page 20]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

   If the third element is absent, directionality context may be
   applying (e.g., base directionality information for an entire CBOR
   message or part thereof).  If there is no directionality context
   applying, the default interpretation is the same as for null
   ("auto").

   In CDDL:

   tag38 = #6.38([tag38-ltag, text, ?tag38-direction])
   tag38-ltag = text .regexp "[a-zA-Z]{1,8}(-[a-zA-Z0-9]{1,8})*"
   tag38-direction = &(ltr: false, rtl: true, auto: null)

   NOTE: Language tags of any combination of case are allowed.  But
   Section 2.1.1 of [RFC5646], part of Best Current Practice 47,
   recommends a case combination for language tags that encoders that
   support tag 38 may wish to follow when generating language tags.

   Data items with tag 38 that do not meet the criteria above are not
   valid (see Section 5.3.2 of [STD94]).

   NOTE: The Unicode Standard [Unicode-14.0.0] includes a set of
   characters designed for tagging text (including language tagging), in
   the range U+E0000 to U+E007F.  Although many applications, including
   RDF, do not disallow these characters in text strings, the Unicode
   Consortium has deprecated these characters and recommends annotating
   language via a higher-level protocol instead.  See the section
   "Deprecated Tag Characters" in Section 23.9 of [Unicode-14.0.0], as
   well as [RFC6082].

A.3.  Examples

   Examples in this section are given in CBOR diagnostic notation first
   and then as a pretty-printed hexadecimal representation of the
   encoded item.

   The following example shows how the English-language string "Hello"
   is represented.

   38(["en", "Hello"])

   D8 26               # tag(38)
      82               # array(2)
         62            # text(2)
            656E       # "en"
         65            # text(5)
            48656C6C6F # "Hello"

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                [Page 21]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

   The following example shows how the French-language string "Bonjour"
   is represented.

   38(["fr", "Bonjour"])

   D8 26                   # tag(38)
      82                   # array(2)
         62                # text(2)
            6672           # "fr"
         67                # text(7)
            426F6E6A6F7572 # "Bonjour"

   The following example shows how the Hebrew-language string "שלום"
   (HEBREW LETTER SHIN, HEBREW LETTER LAMED, HEBREW LETTER VAV, HEBREW
   LETTER FINAL MEM, U+05E9 U+05DC U+05D5 U+05DD) is represented.  Note
   the rtl direction expressed by setting the third element in the array
   to "true".

   38(["he", "שלום", true])

   D8 26                     # tag(38)
      83                     # array(3)
         62                  # text(2)
            6865             # "he"
         68                  # text(8)
            D7A9D79CD795D79D # "שלום"
         F5                  # primitive(21)

Appendix B.  Interworking with RFC 7807

   On certain occasions, it will be necessary to carry ("tunnel")
   [RFC7807] problem details in a Concise Problem Details data item.

   This appendix defines a Custom Problem Details entry for that
   purpose.  This is assigned Custom Problem Detail key 7807 in
   Section 6.2.  Its structure is:

   tunnel-7807 = {
     ? &(type: 0) => ~uri
     ? &(status: 1) => 0..999
     * text => any
   }

   To carry an [RFC7807] problem details JSON object in a Concise
   Problem Details data item, first convert the JSON object to CBOR as
   per Section 6.2 of [STD94].  Create an empty Concise Problem Details
   data item.

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                [Page 22]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

   Move the values for "title", "detail", and "instance", if present,
   from the [RFC7807] problem details to the equivalent Standard Problem
   Detail entries.  Create a Custom Problem Details entry with key 7807.
   Move the values for "type" and "status", if present, to the
   equivalent keys 0 and 1 of the Custom Problem Details entry.  Move
   all remaining key/value pairs (additional members as per Section 3.2
   of [RFC7807]) in the converted [RFC7807] problem details object to
   the Custom Problem Details map unchanged.

   The inverse direction, carrying Concise Problem Details in a Problem
   Details JSON object requires the additional support provided by
   [I-D.ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis], which is planned to create the HTTP
   Problem Types Registry.  An HTTP Problem Type can then be registered
   that extracts top-level items from the Concise Problem Details data
   item in a similar way to the conversion described above, and which
   carries the rest of the Concise Problem Details data item in an
   additional member via base64url encoding without padding (Section 5
   of [RFC4648]).  Details can be defined in a separate document when
   the work on [I-D.ietf-httpapi-rfc7807bis] is completed.

Acknowledgments

   Mark Nottingham and Erik Wilde, authors of RFC 7807.  Klaus Hartke
   and Jaime Jiménez, co-authors of an earlier generation of this
   specification.  Christian Amsüss, Marco Tiloca, Ari Keränen and
   Michael Richardson for review and comments on this document.
   Francesca Palombini for her review (and support) as responsible AD,
   and Joel Jaeggli for his OPSDIR review, both of which brought
   significant additional considerations to this document.

   For Appendix A, John Cowan and Doug Ewell are also to be
   acknowledged.  The content of an earlier version of this appendix was
   also discussed in the "apps-discuss at ietf.org" and "ltru at
   ietf.org" mailing lists.  More recently, the authors initiated a
   discussion about the handling of writing direction information in
   conjunction with language tags.  That led to discussions within the
   W3C Internationalization Core Working Group.  The authors would like
   to acknowledge that cross-organization cooperation and particular
   contributions from John Klensin and Addison Phillips, and specific
   text proposals by Martin Dürst.

Contributors

   Peter Occil
   Email: poccil14 at gmail dot com
   URI:   http://peteroupc.github.io/CBOR/

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                [Page 23]
Internet-Draft            CoRE Problem Details                 July 2022

   Peter defined CBOR tag 38, basis of Appendix A.

   Christian Amsüss
   Email: christian@amsuess.com

   Christian contributed what became Section 3.1.1.

Authors' Addresses

   Thomas Fossati
   arm
   Email: thomas.fossati@arm.com

   Carsten Bormann
   Universität Bremen TZI
   Postfach 330440
   D-28359 Bremen
   Germany
   Phone: +49-421-218-63921
   Email: cabo@tzi.org

Fossati & Bormann        Expires 7 January 2023                [Page 24]