JSON Type Definition
draft-ucarion-json-type-definition-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8927.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Ulysse Carion | ||
| Last updated | 2020-03-16 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| IETF conflict review | conflict-review-ucarion-json-type-definition, conflict-review-ucarion-json-type-definition, conflict-review-ucarion-json-type-definition, conflict-review-ucarion-json-type-definition, conflict-review-ucarion-json-type-definition, conflict-review-ucarion-json-type-definition | ||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8927 (Experimental) | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ucarion-json-type-definition-00
Independent Submission U. Carion
Internet-Draft Segment
Intended status: Experimental March 16, 2020
Expires: September 17, 2020
JSON Type Definition
draft-ucarion-json-type-definition-00
Abstract
This document proposes a format, called JSON Type Definition (JTD),
for describing the shape of JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)
messages. Its main goals are to enable code generation from schemas
as well as portable validation with standardized error indicators.
To this end, JTD is intentionally limited to be no more expressive
than the type systems of mainstream programming languages. This
intentional limitation, as well as the decision to make JTD schemas
be JSON documents, makes tooling atop of JTD easier to build.
This document does not have IETF consensus and is presented here to
facilitate experimentation with the concept of JTD.
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 September 17, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Scope of Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Root vs. non-root schemas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2. Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.1. Empty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.2. Ref . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.3. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.4. Enum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.5. Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.6. Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.7. Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.8. Discriminator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3. Extending JTD's Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3. Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1. Allowing Additional Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2. Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3. Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3.1. Empty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3.2. Ref . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3.3. Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.3.4. Enum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.3.5. Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.3.6. Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.3.7. Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.3.8. Discriminator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Appendix A. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
A.1. Support for 64-bit Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
A.2. Support for Non-Root Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Appendix B. Comparison with CDDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix C. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
1. Introduction
This document describes a schema language for JSON [RFC8259] called
JSON Type Definition (JTD).
There exist many options for describing JSON data. JTD's niche is to
focus on enabling code generation from schemas; to this end, JTD's
expressiveness is intentionally limited to be no more powerful than
what can be expressed in the type systems of mainstream programming
languages.
The goals of JTD are to:
o Provide an unambiguous description of the overall structure of a
JSON document.
o Be able to describe common JSON datatypes and structures. That
is, the datatypes and structures necessary to support most JSON
documents, and which are widely understood in an interoperable way
by JSON implementations.
o Provide a single format that is readable and editable by both
humans and machines, and which can be embedded within other JSON
documents. This makes JTD a convenient format for tooling to
accept as input or produce as output.
o Enable code generation from JTD schemas. JTD schemas are meant to
be easy to convert into data structures idiomatic to mainstream
programming languages.
o Provide a standardized format for error indicators when data does
not conform with a schema.
JTD is intentionally designed as a rather minimal schema language.
Thus, although JTD can describe JSON, it is not able to describe its
own structure: this document uses Concise Data Definition Language
(CDDL) [RFC8610] to describe JTD's syntax. By keeping the
expressiveness of the schema language minimal, JTD makes code
generation and standardized error indicators easier to implement.
Examples in this document use constructs from the C++ programming
language. These examples are provided to aid the reader in
understanding the principles of JTD, but are not limiting in any way.
JTD's feature set is designed to represent common patterns in JSON-
using applications, while still having a clear correspondence to
programming languages in widespread use. Thus, JTD supports:
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
o Signed and unsigned 8, 16, and 32-bit integers. A tool which
converts JTD schemas into code can use "int8_t", "uint8_t",
"int16_t", etc., or their equivalents in the target language, to
represent these JTD types.
o A distinction between "float32" and "float64". Code generators
can use "float" and "double", or their equivalents, for these JTD
types.
o A "properties" form of JSON objects, corresponding to some sort of
struct or record. The "properties" form of JSON objects is akin
to a C++ "struct".
o A "values" form of JSON objects, corresponding to some sort of
dictionary or associative array. The "values" form of JSON
objects is akin to a C++ "std::map".
o A "discriminator" form of JSON objects, corresponding to a
discriminated (or "tagged") union. The "discriminator" form of
JSON objects is akin to a C++ "std::variant".
The principle of common patterns in JSON is why JTD does not support
64-bit integers, as these are usually transmitted over JSON in a non-
interoperable (i.e., ignoring the recommendations in Section 2.2 of
[RFC7493]) or mutually inconsistent ways. Appendix A.1 further
elaborates on why JTD does not support 64-bit integers.
The principle of clear correspondence to common programming languages
is why JTD does not support, for example, a data type for numbers up
to 2**53-1.
It is expected that for many use-cases, a schema language of JTD's
expressiveness is sufficient. Where a more expressive language is
required, alternatives exist in CDDL and others.
This document does not have IETF consensus and is presented here to
facilitate experimentation with the concept of JTD. The purpose of
the experiment is to gain experience with JTD and to possibly revise
this work accordingly. If JTD is determined to be a valuable and
popular approach it may be taken to the IETF for further discussion
and revision.
This document has the following structure:
Section 2 defines the syntax of JTD. Section 3 describes the
semantics of JTD; this includes determining whether some data
satisfies a schema and what error indicators should be produced when
the data is unsatisfactory. Appendix A discusses why certain
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
features are omitted from JTD. Appendix B presents various JTD
schemas and their CDDL equivalents.
1.1. Terminology
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. These words may also appear in this
document in lower case as plain English words, absent their normative
meanings.
The term "JSON Pointer", when it appears in this document, is to be
understood as it is defined in [RFC6901].
The terms "object", "member", "array", "number", "name", and "string"
in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC8259].
The term "instance", when it appears in this document, refers to a
JSON value being validated against a JTD schema.
1.2. Scope of Experiment
JTD is an experiment. Participation in this experiment consists of
using JTD to validate or document interchanged JSON messages, or in
building tooling atop of JTD. Feedback on the results of this
experiment may be e-mailed to the author. Participants in this
experiment are anticipated to mostly be nodes that provide or consume
JSON-based APIs.
Nodes know if they are participating in the experiment if they are
validating JSON messages against a JTD schema, or if they are relying
on another node to do so. Nodes are also participating in the
experiment if they are running code generated from a JTD schema.
The risk of this experiment "escaping" takes the form of a JTD-
supporting node expecting another node, which lacks such support, to
validate messages against some JTD schema. In such a case, the
outcome will likely be that the nodes fail to interchange information
correctly.
This experiment will be deemed successful when JTD has been
implemented by multiple independent parties, and these parties
successfully use JTD to facilitate information interchange within
their internal systems or between systems operated by independent
parties.
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
If this experiment is deemed successful, and JTD is determined to be
a valuable and popular approach, it may be taken to the IETF for
further discussion and revision. One possible outcome of this
discussion and revision could be that a working group produces a
Standards Track specification of JTD.
Some implementations of JTD, as well as code generators and other
tooling related to JTD, are available at <https://github.com/
jsontypedef>.
2. Syntax
This section describes when a JSON document is a correct JTD schema.
Because Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) is well-suited to the
task of defining complex JSON formats, such as JTD schemas, this
section uses CDDL to describe the format of JTD schemas.
JTD schemas may recursively contain other schemas. In this document,
a "root schema" is one which is not contained within another schema,
i.e. it is "top-level".
A JTD schema is a JSON object taking on an appropriate form. JTD
schemas may contain "additional data", discussed in Section 2.3.
Root JTD schemas may optionally contain definitions (a mapping from
names to schemas).
A correct root JTD schema MUST match the "root-schema" CDDL rule
described in this section. A correct non-root JTD schema MUST match
the "schema" CDDL rule described in this section.
; root-schema is identical to schema, but additionally allows for
; definitions.
;
; definitions are prohibited from appearing on non-root schemas.
root-schema = {
schema,
? definitions: { * tstr => schema },
}
; schema is the main CDDL rule defining a JTD schema.
;
; All JTD schemas are JSON objects taking on one of eight forms
; listed here.
schema = empty /
ref /
type /
enum /
elements /
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
properties /
values /
discriminator
; shared is a CDDL rule containing properties that all eight schema
; forms share.
shared = {
? nullable: bool,
? metadata: { * tstr => * },
}
; empty describes the "empty" schema form.
empty = { shared }
; ref describes the "ref" schema form.
;
; There are additional constraints on this form that cannot be
; expressed in CDDL. Section 2.2.2 describes these additional
; constraints in detail.
ref = { shared, ref: tstr }
; type describes the "type" schema form.
type = {
shared,
type: "boolean"
/ "float32"
/ "float64"
/ "int8"
/ "uint8"
/ "int16"
/ "uint16"
/ "int32"
/ "uint32"
/ "string"
/ "timestamp"
}
; enum describes the "enum" schema form.
;
; There are additional constraints on this form that cannot be
; expressed in CDDL. Section 2.2.4 describes these additional
; constraints in detail.
enum = { shared, enum: [+ tstr] }
; elements describes the "elements" schema form.
elements = { shared, elements: schema }
; properties describes the "properties" schema form.
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
;
; This CDDL rule is defined so that a schema of the "properties" form
; may omit a member named "properties" or a member named
; "optionalProperties", but not both.
;
; There are additional constraints on this form that cannot be
; expressed in CDDL. Section 2.2.6 describes these additional
; constraints in detail.
properties = with-properties / with-optional-properties
with-properties = {
shared,
properties: { * tstr => schema },
? optionalProperties: { * tstr => schema },
? additionalProperties: bool,
}
with-optional-properties = {
shared,
? properties: { * tstr => schema },
optionalProperties: { * tstr => schema },
? additionalProperties: bool,
}
; values describes the "values" schema form.
values = { shared, values: schema }
; discriminator describes the "discriminator" schema form.
;
; There are additional constraints on this form that cannot be
; expressed in CDDL. Section 2.2.8 describes these additional
; constraints in detail.
discriminator = {
shared,
discriminator: tstr,
; Note well: this rule is defined in terms of the "properties"
; CDDL rule, not the "schema" CDDL rule.
mapping: { * tstr => properties }
}
Figure 1: CDDL definition of a schema
The remainder of this section will describe constraints on JTD
schemas which cannot be expressed in CDDL, and will provide examples
of valid and invalid JTD schemas.
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
2.1. Root vs. non-root schemas
The "root-schema" rule in Figure 1 permits for a member named
"definitions", but the "schema" rule does not permit for such a
member. This means that only root (i.e., "top-level") JTD schemas
can have a "definitions" object, and sub-schemas may not.
Thus
{ "definitions": {} }
is a correct JTD schema, but
{
"definitions": {
"foo": {
"definitions": {}
}
}
}
is not, because sub-schemas (such as the object at "/definitions/
foo") must not have a member named "definitions".
2.2. Forms
JTD schemas (i.e. JSON objects satisfying the "schema" CDDL rule in
Figure 1) must take on one of eight forms. These forms are defined
so as to be mutually exclusive; a schema cannot satisfy multiple
forms at once.
2.2.1. Empty
The "empty" form is defined by the "empty" CDDL rule in Figure 1.
The semantics of the "empty" form are described in Section 3.3.1.
Despite the name "empty", schemas of the "empty" form are not
necessarily empty JSON objects. Like schemas of any of the eight
forms, schemas of the "empty" form may contain members named
"nullable" (whose value must be "true" or "false") or "metadata"
(whose value must be an object) or both.
Thus
{}
and
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
{ "nullable": true }
and
{ "nullable": true, "metadata": { "foo": "bar" }}
are correct JTD schemas of the empty form, but
{ "nullable": "foo" }
is not, because the value of the member named "nullable" must be
"true" or "false".
2.2.2. Ref
The "ref" form is defined by the "ref" CDDL rule in Figure 1. The
semantics of the "ref" form are described in Section 3.3.2.
For a schema of the "ref" form to be correct, the value of the member
named "ref" must refer to one of the definitions found at the root
level of the schema it appears in. More formally, for a schema _S_
of the "ref" form:
o Let _B_ be the root schema containing the schema, or the schema
itself if it is a root schema.
o Let _R_ be the value of the member of _S_ with the name "ref".
If the schema is correct, then _B_ MUST have a member _D_ with the
name "definitions", and _D_ MUST contain a member whose name equals
_R_.
Thus
{
"definitions": {
"coordinates": {
"properties": {
"lat": { "type": "float32" },
"lng": { "type": "float32" }
}
}
},
"properties": {
"user_location": { "ref": "coordinates" },
"server_location": { "ref": "coordinates" }
}
}
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
is a correct JTD schema, and demonstrates the point of the "ref"
form: to avoid re-defining the same thing twice. However,
{ "ref": "foo" }
is not a correct JTD schema, as there is no top-level "definitions",
and so the "ref" form cannot be correct. Similarly,
{ "definitions": { "foo": {}}, "ref": "bar" }
is not a correct JTD schema, as there is no member named "bar" in the
top-level "definitions".
2.2.3. Type
The "type" form is defined by the "type" CDDL rule in Figure 1. The
semantics of the "type" form are described in Section 3.3.3.
As an example of a correct JTD schema of the "type" form,
{ "type": "uint8" }
is a correct JTD schema, whereas
{ "type": true }
and
{ "type": "foo" }
are not correct schemas, as neither "true" nor the JSON string "foo"
are in the list of permitted values of the "type" member described in
the "type" CDDL rule in Figure 1.
2.2.4. Enum
The "enum" form is defined by the "enum" CDDL rule in Figure 1. The
semantics of the "enum" form are described in Section 3.3.4.
For a schema of the "enum" form to be correct, the value of the
member named "enum" must be a nonempty array of strings, and that
array must not contain duplicate values. More formally, for a schema
_S_ of the "enum" form:
o Let _E_ be the value of the member of _S_ with name "enum".
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
If the schema is correct, then there MUST NOT exist any pair of
elements of _E_ which encode equal string values, where string
equality is defined as in Section 8.3 of [RFC8259].
Thus
{ "enum": [] }
is not a correct JTD schema, as the value of the member named "enum"
must be nonempty, and
{ "enum": ["a\\b", "a\u005Cb"] }
is not a correct JTD schema, as
"a\\b"
and
"a\u005Cb"
encode strings that are equal by the definition of string equality
given in Section 8.3 of [RFC8259]. By contrast,
{ "enum": ["PENDING", "IN_PROGRESS", "DONE" ]}
is an example of a correct JTD schema of the "enum" form.
2.2.5. Elements
The "elements" form is defined by the "elements" CDDL rule in
Figure 1. The semantics of the "elements" form are described in
Section 3.3.5.
As an example of a correct JTD schema of the "elements" form,
{ "elements": { "type": "uint8" }}
is a correct JTD schema, whereas
{ "elements": true }
and
{ "elements": { "type": "foo" } }
are not correct schemas, as neither
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
true
nor
{ "type": "foo" }
are correct JTD schemas, and the value of the member named "elements"
must be a correct JTD schema.
2.2.6. Properties
The "properties" form is defined by the "properties" CDDL rule in
Figure 1. The semantics of the "properties" form are described in
Section 3.3.6.
For a schema of the "properties" form to be correct, properties must
either be required (i.e., in "properties") or optional (i.e., in
"optionalProperties"), but not both. More formally:
If a schema has both a member named "properties" (with value _P_) and
another member named "optionalProperties" (with value _O_), then _O_
and _P_ MUST NOT have any member names in common; that is, no member
of _P_ may have a name equal to the name of any member of _O_, under
the definition of string equality given in Section 8.3 of [RFC8259].
Thus
{
"properties": { "confusing": {} },
"optionalProperties": { "confusing": {} }
}
is not a correct JTD schema, as "confusing" appears in both
"properties" and "optionalProperties". By contrast,
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
{
"properties": {
"users": {
"elements": {
"properties": {
"id": { "type": "string" },
"name": { "type": "string" },
"create_time": { "type": "timestamp" }
},
"optionalProperties": {
"delete_time": { "type": "timestamp" }
}
}
},
"next_page_token": { "type": "string" }
}
}
is a correct JTD schema of the "properties" form, describing a
paginated list of users and demonstrating the recursive nature of the
syntax of JTD schemas.
2.2.7. Values
The "values" form is defined by the "values" CDDL rule in Figure 1.
The semantics of the "values" form are described in Section 3.3.7.
As an example of a correct JTD schema of the "values" form,
{ "values": { "type": "uint8" }}
is a correct JTD schema, whereas
{ "values": true }
and
{ "values": { "type": "foo" } }
are not correct schemas, as neither
true
nor
{ "type": "foo" }
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
are correct JTD schemas, and the value of the member named "values"
must be a correct JTD schema.
2.2.8. Discriminator
The "discriminator" form is defined by the "discriminator" CDDL rule
in Figure 1. The semantics of the "discriminator" form are described
in Section 3.3.8. Understanding the semantics of the "discriminator"
form will likely aid the reader in understanding why this section
provides constraints on the "discriminator" form beyond those in
Figure 1.
To prevent ambiguous or unsatisfiable constraints on the
"discriminator" property of a tagged union, an additional constraint
on schemas of the "discriminator" form exists. For schemas of the
discriminator form:
o Let _D_ be the member of the schema with the name "discriminator".
o Let _M_ be the member of the schema with the name "mapping".
If the schema is correct, then all member values _S_ of _M_ will be
schemas of the "properties" form. For each member _P_ of _S_ whose
name equals "properties" or "optionalProperties", _P_'s value, which
must be an object, MUST NOT contain any members whose name equals
_D_'s value.
Thus
{
"discriminator": "event_type",
"mapping": {
"is_event_type_a_string_or_a_float32?": {
"properties": { "event_type": { "type": "float32" }}
}
}
}
and
{
"discriminator": "event_type",
"mapping": {
"is_event_type_a_string_or_an_optional_float32?": {
"optionalProperties": { "event_type": { "type": "float32" }}
}
}
}
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
are incorrect schemas, as "event_type" is both the value of
"discriminator" and a member name in one of the "mapping" member
"properties" or "optionalProperties". This is ambiguous, because
ordinarily the "discriminator" keyword would indicate that
"event_type" is expected to be a string, but another part of the
schema specifies that "event_type" is expected to be a number.
JTD handles such possible ambiguity by disallowing, at the syntactic
level, the possibility of contradictory specifications of
discriminator "tags". Discriminator "tags" cannot be re-defined in
other parts of the schema.
By contrast,
{
"tag": "event_type",
"mapping": {
"account_deleted": {
"properties": {
"account_id": { "type": "string" }
}
},
"account_payment_plan_changed": {
"properties": {
"account_id": { "type": "string" },
"payment_plan": { "enum": ["FREE", "PAID"] }
},
"optionalProperties": {
"upgraded_by": { "type": "string" }
}
}
}
}
is a correct schema, describing a pattern of data common in JSON-
based messaging systems. Section 3.3.8 provides examples of what
this schema accepts and rejects.
2.3. Extending JTD's Syntax
This document does not describe any extension mechanisms for JTD
schema validation, which is described in Section 3. However, schemas
are defined to optionally contain a "metadata" keyword, whose value
is an arbitrary JSON object. Call the members of this object
"metadata members".
Users MAY add metadata members to JTD schemas to convey information
that is not pertinent to validation. For example, such metadata
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
members could provide hints to code generators, or trigger some
special behavior for a library that generates user interfaces from
schemas.
Users SHOULD NOT expect metadata members to be understood by other
parties. As a result, if consistent validation with other parties is
a requirement, users SHOULD NOT use metadata members to affect how
schema validation, as described in Section 3, works.
Users MAY expect metadata members to be understood by other parties,
and MAY use metadata members to affect how schema validation works,
if these other parties are somehow known to support these metadata
members. For example, two parties may agree, out of band, that they
will support an extended JTD with a custom metadata member that
affects validation.
3. Semantics
This section describes when an instance is valid against a correct
JTD schema, and the error indicators to produce when an instance is
invalid.
3.1. Allowing Additional Properties
Users will have different desired behavior with respect to
"unspcecified" members in an instance. For example, consider the JTD
schema in Figure 2:
{ "properties": { "a": { "type": "string" }}}
Figure 2: An illustrative JTD schema
Some users may expect that
{"a": "foo", "b": "bar"}
satisfies the schema in Figure 2. Others may disagree, as "b" is not
one of the properties described in the schema. In this document,
allowing such "unspecified" members, like "b" in this example,
happens when evaluation is in "allow additional properties" mode.
Evaluation of a schema does not allow additional properties by
default, but can be overridden by having the schema include a member
named "additionalProperties", where that member has a value of
"true".
More formally: evaluation of a schema _S_ is in "allow additional
properties" mode if there exists a member of _S_ whose name equals
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
"additionalProperties", and whose value is a boolean "true".
Otherwise, evaluation of _S_ is not in "allow additional properties"
mode.
See Section 3.3.6 for how allowing unknown properties affects schema
evaluation, but briefly, the schema
{ "properties": { "a": { "type": "string" }}}
rejects
{ "a": "foo", "b": "bar" }
However, the schema
{
"additionalProperties": true,
"properties": { "a": { "type": "string" }}
}
accepts
{ "a": "foo", "b": "bar" }
Note that "additionalProperties" does not get "inherited" by sub-
schemas. For example, the JTD schema
{
"additionalProperties": true,
"properties": {
"a": {
"properties": {
"b": { "type": "string" }
}
}
}
}
accepts
{ "a": { "b": "c" }, "foo": "bar" }
but rejects
{ "a": { "b": "c", "foo": "bar" }}
because the "additionalProperties" at the root level does not affect
the behavior of sub-schemas.
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
Note from Figure 1 that only schemas of the "properties" form may
have a member named "additionalProperties".
3.2. Errors
To facilitate consistent validation error handling, this document
specifies a standard error indicator format. Implementations SHOULD
support producing error indicators in this standard form.
The standard error indicator format is a JSON array. The order of
the elements of this array is not specified. The elements of this
array are JSON objects with:
o A member with the name "instancePath", whose value is a JSON
string encoding a JSON Pointer. This JSON Pointer will point to
the part of the instance that was rejected.
o A member with the name "schemaPath", whose value is a JSON string
encoding a JSON Pointer. This JSON Pointer will point to the part
of the schema that rejected the instance.
The values for "instancePath" and "schemaPath" depend on the form of
the schema, and are described in detail in Section 3.3.
3.3. Forms
This section describes, for each of the eight JTD schema forms, the
rules dictating whether an instance is accepted, as well as the error
indicators to produce when an instance is invalid.
The forms a correct schema may take on are formally described in
Section 2.
3.3.1. Empty
The "empty" form is meant to describe instances whose values are
unknown, unpredictable, or otherwise unconstrained by the schema.
The syntax of the "empty" form is described in Section 2.2.1.
If a schema is of the empty form, then it accepts all instances. A
schema of the empty form will never produce any error indicators.
3.3.2. Ref
The "ref" form is for when a schema is defined in terms of something
in the "definitions" of the root schema. The ref form enables
schemas to be less repetitive, and also enables describing recursive
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
structures. The syntax of the "ref" form is described in
Section 2.2.2.
If a schema is of the ref form, then:
o If the schema has a member named "nullable" whose value is the
boolean "true", and the instance is the JSON primitive value
"null", then the schema accepts the instance. Otherwise:
o Let _B_ be the root schema containing the schema, or the schema
itself if it is a root schema.
o Let _D_ be the member of _B_ with the name "definitions". By
Section 2, _D_ exists.
o Let _R_ be the value of the schema member with the name "ref".
o Let _S_ be the value of the member of _D_ whose name equals _R_.
By Section 2.2.2, _S_ exists, and is a schema.
The schema accepts the instance if and only if _S_ accepts the
instance. Otherwise, the error indicators to return in this case are
the union of the error indicators from evaluating _S_ against the
instance.
For example, the schema:
{
"definitions": { "a": { "type": "float32" }},
"ref": "a"
}
accepts
123
but rejects
null
with the error indicator
[{ "instancePath": "", "schemaPath": "/definitions/a/type" }]
The schema
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
{
"definitions": { "a": { "type": "float32" }},
"ref": "a",
"nullable": true
}
accepts
null
because the schema has a "nullable" member, whose value is "true".
Note that "nullable" being "false" has no effect in any of the forms
described in this document. For example, the schema
{
"definitions": { "a": { "nullable": false, "type": "float32" }},
"ref": "a",
"nullable": true
}
accepts
null
In other words, it is not the case that putting a "false" value for
"nullable" will ever "override" a "nullable" member in schemas of the
"ref" form; it is correct, though ineffectual, to have a value of
"false" for the "nullable" member in a schema.
3.3.3. Type
The "type" form is meant to describe instances whose value is a
boolean, number, string, or timestamp ([RFC3339]). The syntax of the
"type" form is described in Section 2.2.3.
If a schema is of the type form, then:
o If the schema has a member named "nullable" whose value is the
boolean "true", and the instance is the JSON primitive value
"null", then the schema accepts the instance. Otherwise:
o Let _T_ be the value of the member with the name "type". The
following table describes whether the instance is accepted, as a
function of _T_'s value:
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
+-------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| If _T_ equals ... | then the instance is accepted if it is ... |
+-------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| boolean | equal to "true" or "false" |
| | |
| float32 | a JSON number |
| | |
| float64 | a JSON number |
| | |
| int8 | See Table 2 |
| | |
| uint8 | See Table 2 |
| | |
| int16 | See Table 2 |
| | |
| uint16 | See Table 2 |
| | |
| int32 | See Table 2 |
| | |
| uint32 | See Table 2 |
| | |
| string | a JSON string |
| | |
| timestamp | a JSON string encoding a [RFC3339] timestamp |
+-------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Table 1: Accepted Values for Type
"float32" and "float64" are distinguished from each other in their
intent. "float32" indicates data intended to be processed as an IEEE
754 single-precision float, whereas "float64" indicates data intended
to be processed as an IEEE 754 double-precision float. Tools which
generate code from JTD schemas will likely produce different code for
"float32" than for "float64".
If _T_ starts with "int" or "uint", then the instance is accepted if
and only if it is a JSON number encoding a value with zero fractional
part. Depending on the value of _T_, this encoded number must
additionally fall within a particular range:
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
+--------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| _T_ | Minimum Value (Inclusive) | Maximum Value (Inclusive) |
+--------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
| int8 | -128 | 127 |
| | | |
| uint8 | 0 | 255 |
| | | |
| int16 | -32,768 | 32,767 |
| | | |
| uint16 | 0 | 65,535 |
| | | |
| int32 | -2,147,483,648 | 2,147,483,647 |
| | | |
| uint32 | 0 | 4,294,967,295 |
+--------+---------------------------+---------------------------+
Table 2: Ranges for Integer Types
Note that
10
and
10.0
and
1.0e1
encode values with zero fractional part, whereas
10.5
encodes a number with a non-zero fractional part. Thus the schema
{"type": "int8"}
accepts
10
and
10.0
and
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
1.0e1
but rejects
10.5
as well as
false
because "false" is not a number at all.
If the instance is not accepted, then the error indicator for this
case shall have an "instancePath" pointing to the instance, and a
"schemaPath" pointing to the schema member with the name "type".
For example, the schema:
{"type": "boolean"}
accepts
false
but rejects
127
The schema:
{"type": "float32"}
accepts
10.5
and
127
but rejects
false
The schema:
{"type": "string"}
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
accepts
"1985-04-12T23:20:50.52Z"
and
"foo"
but rejects
false
The schema:
{"type": "timestamp"}
accepts
"1985-04-12T23:20:50.52Z"
but rejects
"foo"
and
false
The schema:
{"type": "boolean", "nullable": true}
accepts
null
and
false
but rejects
127
In all of the examples of rejected instances given in this section,
the error indicator to produce is:
[{ "instancePath": "", "schemaPath": "/type" }]
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
3.3.4. Enum
The "enum" form is meant to describe instances whose value must be
one of a given set of string values. The syntax of the "enum" form
is described in Section 2.2.4.
If a schema is of the enum form, then:
o If the schema has a member named "nullable" whose value is the
boolean "true", and the instance is the JSON primitive value
"null", then the schema accepts the instance. Otherwise:
o Let _E_ be the value of the schema member with the name "enum".
The instance is accepted if and only if it is equal to one of the
elements of _E_.
If the instance is not accepted, then the error indicator for this
case shall have an "instancePath" pointing to the instance, and a
"schemaPath" pointing to the schema member with the name "enum".
For example, the schema:
{ "enum": ["PENDING", "DONE", "CANCELED"] }
Accepts
"PENDING"
and
"DONE"
and
"CANCELED"
but rejects all of
0
and
1
and
2
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
and
"UNKNOWN"
and
null
with the error indicator:
[{ "instancePath": "", "schemaPath": "/enum" }]
The schema
{ "enum": ["PENDING", "DONE", "CANCELED"], "nullable": true }
accepts
"PENDING"
and
null
but rejects
1
and
"UNKNOWN"
with the error indicator:
[{ "instancePath": "", "schemaPath": "/enum" }]
3.3.5. Elements
The "elements" form is meant to describe instances that must be
arrays. A further sub-schema describes the elements of the array.
The syntax of the "elements" form is described in Section 2.2.5.
If a schema is of the elements form, then:
o If the schema has a member named "nullable" whose value is the
boolean "true", and the instance is the JSON primitive value
"null", then the schema accepts the instance. Otherwise:
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
o Let _S_ be the value of the schema member with the name
"elements". The instance is accepted if and only if all of the
following are true:
* The instance is an array. Otherwise, the error indicator for
this case shall have an "instancePath" pointing to the
instance, and a "schemaPath" pointing to the schema member with
the name "elements".
* If the instance is an array, then every element of the instance
must be accepted by _S_. Otherwise, the error indicators for
this case are the union of all the errors arising from
evaluating _S_ against elements of the instance.
For example, the schema:
{
"elements": {
"type": "float32"
}
}
accepts
[]
and
[1, 2, 3]
but rejects
null
with the error indicator:
[{ "instancePath": "", "schemaPath": "/elements" }]
and rejects
[1, 2, "foo", 3, "bar"]
with the error indicators:
[
{ "instancePath": "/2", "schemaPath": "/elements/type" },
{ "instancePath": "/4", "schemaPath": "/elements/type" }
]
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
The schema
{
"elements": {
"type": "float32"
},
"nullable": true
}
accepts
null
and
[]
and
[1, 2, 3]
but rejects
[1, 2, "foo", 3, "bar"]
with the error indicators:
[
{ "instancePath": "/2", "schemaPath": "/elements/type" },
{ "instancePath": "/4", "schemaPath": "/elements/type" }
]
3.3.6. Properties
The "properties" form is meant to describe JSON objects being used as
a "struct". The syntax of the "properties" form is described in
Section 2.2.6.
If a schema is of the properties form, then:
o If the schema has a member named "nullable" whose value is the
boolean "true", and the instance is the JSON primitive value
"null", then the schema accepts the instance. Otherwise the
instance is accepted if and only if all of the following are true:
o The instance is an object.
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
Otherwise, the error indicator for this case shall have an
"instancePath" pointing to the instance, and a "schemaPath"
pointing to the schema member with the name "properties" if such a
schema member exists; if such a member doesn't exist, "schemaPath"
shall point to the schema member with the name
"optionalProperties".
o If the instance is an object and the schema has a member named
"properties", then let _P_ be the value of the schema member named
"properties". _P_, by Section 2.2.6, must be an object. For every
member name in _P_, a member of the same name in the instance must
exist.
Otherwise, the error indicator for this case shall have an
"instancePath" pointing to the instance, and a "schemaPath"
pointing to the member of _P_ failing the requirement just
described.
o If the instance is an object, then let _P_ be the value of the
schema member named "properties" (if it exists), and _O_ be the
value of the schema member named "optionalProperties" (if it
exists).
For every member _I_ of the instance, find a member with the same
name as _I_'s in _P_ or _O_. By Section 2.2.6, it is not possible
for both _P_ and _O_ to have such a member. If the "discriminator
tag exemption" is in effect on _I_ (see Section 3.3.8), then
ignore _I_. Otherwise:
* If no such member in _P_ or _O_ exists and validation is not in
"allow additional properties" mode (see Section 3.1), then the
instance is rejected.
The error indicator for this case has an "instancePath"
pointing to _I_, and a "schemaPath" pointing to the schema.
* If such a member in _P_ or _O_ does exist, then call this
member _S_. If _S_ rejects _I_'s value, then the instance is
rejected.
The error indicators for this case are the union of the error
indicators from evaluating _S_ against _I_'s value.
An instance may have multiple errors arising from the third and
fourth bullet in the above. In this case, the error indicators are
the union of the errors.
For example, the schema:
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
{
"properties": {
"a": { "type": "string" },
"b": { "type": "string" }
},
"optionalProperties": {
"c": { "type": "string" },
"d": { "type": "string" }
}
}
accepts
{ "a": "foo", "b": "bar" }
and
{ "a": "foo", "b": "bar", "c": "baz" }
and
{ "a": "foo", "b": "bar", "c": "baz", "d": "quux" }
and
{ "a": "foo", "b": "bar", "d": "quux" }
but rejects
null
with the error indicator
[{ "instancePath": "", "schemaPath": "/properties" }]
and rejects
{ "b": 3, "c": 3, "e": 3 }
with the error indicators
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
[
{ "instancePath": "",
"schemaPath": "/properties/a" },
{ "instancePath": "/b",
"schemaPath": "/properties/b/type" },
{ "instancePath": "/c",
"schemaPath": "/optionalProperties/c/type" },
{ "instancePath": "/e",
"schemaPath": "" }
]
If instead the schema had "additionalProperties: true", but was
otherwise the same:
{
"properties": {
"a": { "type": "string" },
"b": { "type": "string" }
},
"optionalProperties": {
"c": { "type": "string" },
"d": { "type": "string" }
},
"additionalProperties": true
}
And the instance remained the same:
{ "b": 3, "c": 3, "e": 3 }
Then the error indicators from evaluating the instance against the
schema would be:
[
{ "instancePath": "",
"schemaPath": "/properties/a" },
{ "instancePath": "/b",
"schemaPath": "/properties/b/type" },
{ "instancePath": "/c",
"schemaPath": "/optionalProperties/c/type" },
]
These are the same errors as before, except the final error
(associated with the additional member named "e" in the instance) is
no longer present. This is because "additionalProperties: true"
enables "allow additional properties" mode on the schema.
Finally, the schema:
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
{
"nullable": true,
"properties": {
"a": { "type": "string" },
"b": { "type": "string" }
},
"optionalProperties": {
"c": { "type": "string" },
"d": { "type": "string" }
},
"additionalProperties": true
}
accepts
null
but rejects
{ "b": 3, "c": 3, "e": 3 }
with the error indicators
[
{ "instancePath": "",
"schemaPath": "/properties/a" },
{ "instancePath": "/b",
"schemaPath": "/properties/b/type" },
{ "instancePath": "/c",
"schemaPath": "/optionalProperties/c/type" },
]
3.3.7. Values
The "values" form is meant to describe instances that are JSON
objects being used as an associative array. The syntax of the
"values" form is described in Section 2.2.7.
If a schema is of the values form, then:
o If the schema has a member named "nullable" whose value is the
boolean "true", and the instance is the JSON primitive value
"null", then the schema accepts the instance. Otherwise:
o Let _S_ be the value of the schema member with the name "values".
The instance is accepted if and only if all of the following are
true:
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
* The instance is an object. Otherwise, the error indicator for
this case shall have an "instancePath" pointing to the
instance, and a "schemaPath" pointing to the schema member with
the name "values".
* If the instance is an object, then every member value of the
instance must be accepted by _S_. Otherwise, the error
indicators for this case are the union of all the error
indicators arising from evaluating _S_ against member values of
the instance.
For example, the schema:
{
"values": {
"type": "float32"
}
}
accepts
{}
and
{"a": 1, "b": 2}
but rejects
null
with the error indicator
[{ "instancePath": "", "schemaPath": "/values" }]
and rejects
{ "a": 1, "b": 2, "c": "foo", "d": 3, "e": "bar" }
with the error indicators
[
{ "instancePath": "/c", "schemaPath": "/values/type" },
{ "instancePath": "/e", "schemaPath": "/values/type" }
]
The schema:
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
{
"nullable": true,
"values": {
"type": "float32"
}
}
accepts
null
but rejects
{ "a": 1, "b": 2, "c": "foo", "d": 3, "e": "bar" }
with the error indicators
[
{ "instancePath": "/c", "schemaPath": "/values/type" },
{ "instancePath": "/e", "schemaPath": "/values/type" }
]
3.3.8. Discriminator
The "discriminator" form is meant to describe JSON objects being used
in a fashion similar to a discriminated union construct in C-like
languages. The syntax of the "discriminator" form is described in
Section 2.2.8.
When a schema is of the "discriminator" form, it validates:
o That the instance is an object,
o That the instance has a particular "tag" property,
o That this "tag" property's value is a string within a set of valid
values, and
o That the instance satisfies another schema, where this other
schema is chosen based on the value of the "tag" property.
The behavior of the discriminator form is more complex than the other
keywords. Readers familiar with CDDL may find the final example in
Appendix B helpful in understanding its behavior. What follows in
this section is a description of the discriminator form's behavior,
as well as some examples.
If a schema is of the "discriminator" form, then:
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
o Let _D_ be the schema member with the name "discriminator".
o Let _T_ be the member of _D_ with the name "tag".
o Let _M_ be the member of _D_ with the name "mapping".
o Let _I_ be the instance member whose name equals _T_'s value. _I_
may, for some rejected instances, not exist.
o Let _S_ be the member of _M_ whose name equals _I_'s value. _S_
may, for some rejected instances, not exist.
If the schema has a member named "nullable" whose value is the
boolean "true", and the instance is the JSON primitive value "null",
then the schema accepts the instance. Otherwise the instance is
accepted if and only if all of the following are true:
o The instance is an object.
Otherwise, the error indicator for this case shall have an
"instancePath" pointing to the instance, and a "schemaPath"
pointing to _D_.
o If the instance is a JSON object, then _I_ must exist.
Otherwise, the error indicator for this case shall have an
"instancePath" pointing to the instance, and a "schemaPath"
pointing to _T_.
o If the instance is a JSON object and _I_ exists, _I_'s value must
be a string.
Otherwise, the error indicator for this case shall have an
"instancePath" pointing to _I_, and a "schemaPath" pointing to
_T_.
o If the instance is a JSON object and _I_ exists and has a string
value, then _S_ must exist.
Otherwise, the error indicator for this case shall have an
"instancePath" pointing to _I_, and a "schemaPath" pointing to
_M_.
o If the instance is a JSON object, _I_ exists, and _S_ exists, then
the instance must satisfy _S_'s value. By Section 2, _S_'s value
must have the properties form. Apply the "discriminator tag
exemption" afforded in Section 3.3.6 to _I_ when evaluating
whether the instance satisfies _S_'s value.
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
Otherwise, the error indicators for this case shall be error
indicators from evaluating _S_'s value against the instance, with
the "discriminator tag exemption" applied to _I_.
The list items above are defined to be mutually exclusive. For the
same instance and schema, only one of the list items above will
apply.
For example, the schema:
{
"discriminator": "version",
"mapping": {
"v1": {
"properties": {
"a": { "type": "float32" }
}
},
"v2": {
"properties": {
"a": { "type": "string" }
}
}
}
}
rejects
null
with the error indicator
[{ "instancePath": "", "schemaPath": "/discriminator" }]
(This is the case of the instance not being an object.)
Also rejected is
{}
with the error indicator
[{ "instancePath": "", "schemaPath": "/discriminator/tag" }]
(This is the case of _I_ not existing.)
Also rejected is
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
{ "version": 1 }
with the error indicator
[
{
"instancePath": "/version",
"schemaPath": "/discriminator/tag"
}
]
(This is the case of _I_ existing, but not having a string value.)
Also rejected is
{ "version": "v3" }
with the error indicator
[
{
"instancePath": "/version",
"schemaPath": "/discriminator/mapping"
}
]
(This is the case of _I_ existing and having a string value, but _S_
not existing.)
Also rejected is
{ "version": "v2", "a": 3 }
with the error indicator
[
{
"instancePath": "/a",
"schemaPath": "/discriminator/mapping/v2/properties/a/type"
}
]
(This is the case of _I_ and _S_ existing, but the instance not
satisfying _S_'s value.)
Finally, the schema accepts
{ "version": "v2", "a": "foo" }
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
This instance is accepted even though "version" is not mentioned by
"/discriminator/mapping/v2/properties"; the "discriminator tag
exemption" ensures that "version" is not treated as an additional
property when evaluating the instance against _S_'s value.
By contrast, consider the same schema, but with "nullable" being
"true". The schema:
{
"nullable": true,
"discriminator": "version",
"mapping": {
"v1": {
"properties": {
"a": { "type": "float32" }
}
},
"v2": {
"properties": {
"a": { "type": "string" }
}
}
}
}
accepts
null
To further illustrate the discriminator form with examples, recall
the JTD schema in Section 2.2.8, reproduced here:
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
{
"discriminator": "event_type",
"mapping": {
"account_deleted": {
"properties": {
"account_id": { "type": "string" }
}
},
"account_payment_plan_changed": {
"properties": {
"account_id": { "type": "string" },
"payment_plan": { "enum": ["FREE", "PAID"] }
},
"optionalProperties": {
"upgraded_by": { "type": "string" }
}
}
}
}
This schema accepts
{ "event_type": "account_deleted", "account_id": "abc-123" }
and
{
"event_type": "account_payment_plan_changed",
"account_id": "abc-123",
"payment_plan": "PAID"
}
and
{
"event_type": "account_payment_plan_changed",
"account_id": "abc-123",
"payment_plan": "PAID",
"upgraded_by": "users/mkhwarizmi"
}
but rejects
{}
with the error indicator
[{ "instancePath": "", "schemaPath": "/discriminator/tag" }]
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
and rejects
{ "event_type": "some_other_event_type" }
with the error indicator
[
{
"instancePath": "/event_type",
"schemaPath": "/discriminator/mapping"
}
]
and rejects
{ "event_type": "account_deleted" }
with the error indicator
[{
"instancePath": "",
"schemaPath":
"/discriminator/mapping/account_deleted/properties/account_id"
}]
and rejects
{
"event_type": "account_payment_plan_changed",
"account_id": "abc-123",
"payment_plan": "PAID",
"xxx": "asdf"
}
with the error indicator
[{
"instancePath": "/xxx",
"schemaPath":
"/discriminator/mapping/account_payment_plan_changed"
}]
4. IANA Considerations
No IANA considerations.
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
5. Security Considerations
Implementations of JTD will necessarily be manipulating JSON data.
Therefore, the security considerations of [RFC8259] are all relevant
here.
Implementations which evaluate user-inputted schemas SHOULD implement
mechanisms to detect, and abort, circular references which might
cause a naive implementation to go into an infinite loop. Without
such mechanisms, implementations may be vulnerable to denial-of-
service attacks.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[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>.
[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/info/rfc3339>.
[RFC6901] Bryan, P., Ed., Zyp, K., and M. Nottingham, Ed.,
"JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Pointer", RFC 6901,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6901, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6901>.
[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>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
[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>.
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.handrews-json-schema]
Wright, A., Andrews, H., Hutton, B., and G. Dennis, "JSON
Schema: A Media Type for Describing JSON Documents",
draft-handrews-json-schema-02 (work in progress),
September 2019.
[OPENAPI] OpenAPI Initiative, "OpenAPI Specification", October 2019,
<https://spec.openapis.org/oas/v3.0.2>.
[RFC7071] Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Media Type for
Reputation Interchange", RFC 7071, DOI 10.17487/RFC7071,
November 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7071>.
[RFC7493] Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7493>.
Appendix A. Other Considerations
This appendix is not normative.
This section describes possible features which are intentionally left
out of JSON Type Definition, and justifies why these features are
omitted.
A.1. Support for 64-bit Numbers
This document does not allow "int64" or "uint64" as values for the
JTD "type" keyword (see Section 2.2.3 and Section 3.3.3). Such
hypothetical "int64" or "uint64" types would behave like "int32" or
"uint32" (respectively), but with the range of values associated with
64-bit instead of 32-bit integers, that is:
o "int64" would accept numbers between -(2**63) and (2**63)-1
o "uint64" would accept numbers between 0 and (2**64)-1
Users of "int64" and "uint64" would likely expect that the full range
of signed or unsigned 64-bit integers could interoperably be
transmitted as JSON without loss of precision. But this assumption
is likely to be incorrect, for the reasons given in Section 2.2 of
[RFC7493].
"int64" and "uint64" likely would have led users to falsely assume
that the full range of 64-bit integers can be interoperably processed
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
as JSON without loss of precision. To avoid leading users astray,
JTD omits "int64" and "uint64".
A.2. Support for Non-Root Definitions
This document disallows the "definitions" keyword from appearing
outside of root schemas (see Figure 1). Conceivably, this document
could have instead allowed "definitions" to appear on any schema,
even non-root ones. Under this alternative design, "ref"s would
resolve to a definition in the "nearest" (i.e., most nested) schema
which both contained the "ref" and which had a suitably-named
"definitions" member.
For instance, under this alternative approach, one could define
schemas like the one in Figure 3:
{
"properties": {
"foo": {
"definitions": {
"user": { "properties": { "user_id": {"type": "string" }}}
},
"ref": "user"
},
"bar": {
"definitions": {
"user": { "properties": { "user_id": {"type": "string" }}}
},
"ref": "user"
},
"baz": {
"definitions": {
"user": { "properties": { "userId": {"type": "string" }}}
},
"ref": "user"
}
}
}
Figure 3: A hypothetical schema had this document permitted non-root
definitions. This is not a correct JTD schema.
If schemas like that in Figure 3 were permitted, code generation from
JTD schemas would be more difficult, and the generated code would be
less useful.
Code generation would be more difficult because it would force code
generators to implement a name mangling scheme for types generated
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
from definitions. This additional difficulty is not immense, but
adds complexity to an otherwise relatively trivial task.
Generated code would be less useful because generated, mangled struct
names are less pithy than human-defined struct names. For instance,
the "user" definitions in Figure 3 might have been generated into
types named "PropertiesFooUser", "PropertiesBarUser", and
"PropertiesBazUser"; obtuse names like these are less useful to
human-written code than names like "User".
Furthermore, even though "PropertiesFooUser" and "PropertiesBarUser"
would be essentially identical, they would not be interchangeable in
many statically-typed programming languages. A code generator could
attempt to circumvent this by deduplicating identical definitions,
but then the user might be confused as to why the subtly distinct
"PropertiesBazUser", defined from a schema allowing a property named
"userId" (not "user_id"), was not deduplicated.
Because there seem to be implementation and usability challenges
associated with non-root definitions, and because it would be easier
to later amend JTD to permit for non-root definitions than to later
amend JTD to prohibit them, this document does not permit non-root
definitions in JTD schemas.
Appendix B. Comparison with CDDL
This appendix is not normative.
To aid the reader familiar with CDDL, this section illustrates how
JTD works by presenting JTD schemas and CDDL schemas which accept and
reject the same instances.
The JTD schema:
{}
accepts the same instances as the CDDL rule:
root = any
The JTD schema:
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
{
"definitions": {
"a": { "elements": { "ref": "b" }},
"b": { "type": "float32" }
},
"elements": {
"ref": "a"
}
}
accepts the same instances as the CDDL rule:
root = [* a]
a = [* b]
b = number
The JTD schema:
{ "enum": ["PENDING", "DONE", "CANCELED"]}
accepts the same instances as the CDDL rule:
root = "PENDING" / "DONE" / "CANCELED"
The JTD schema:
{"type": "boolean"}
accepts the same instances as the CDDL rule:
root = bool
The JTD schemas:
{"type": "float32"}
and
{"type": "float64"}
both accept the same instances as the CDDL rule:
root = number
The JTD schema:
{"type": "string"}
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
accepts the same instances as the CDDL rule:
root = tstr
The JTD schema:
{"type": "timestamp"}
accepts the same instances as the CDDL rule:
root = tdate
The JTD schema:
{ "elements": { "type": "float32" }}
accepts the same instances as the CDDL rule:
root = [* number]
The JTD schema:
{
"properties": {
"a": { "type": "boolean" },
"b": { "type": "float32" }
},
"optionalProperties": {
"c": { "type": "string" },
"d": { "type": "timestamp" }
}
}
accepts the same instances as the CDDL rule:
root = { a: bool, b: number, ? c: tstr, ? d: tdate }
The JTD schema:
{ "values": { "type": "float32" }}
accepts the same instances as the CDDL rule:
root = { * tstr => number }
Finally, the JTD schema:
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
{
"discriminator": "a",
"mapping": {
"foo": {
"properties": {
"b": { "type": "float32" }
}
},
"bar": {
"properties": {
"b": { "type": "string" }
}
}
}
}
accepts the same instances as the CDDL rule:
root = { a: "foo", b: number } / { a: "bar", b: tstr }
Appendix C. Examples
This appendix is not normative.
As a demonstration of JTD, in Figure 4 is a JTD schema closely
equivalent to the plain-English definition "reputation-object"
described in Section 6.2.2 of [RFC7071]:
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
{
"properties": {
"application": { "type": "string" },
"reputons": {
"elements": {
"additionalProperties": true,
"properties": {
"rater": { "type": "string" },
"assertion": { "type": "string" },
"rated": { "type": "string" },
"rating": { "type": "float32" },
},
"optionalProperties": {
"confidence": { "type": "float32" },
"normal-rating": { "type": "float32" },
"sample-size": { "type": "float64" },
"generated": { "type": "float64" },
"expires": { "type": "float64" }
}
}
}
}
}
Figure 4: A JTD schema describing "reputation-object" from
Section 6.6.2 of [RFC7071]
This schema does not enforce the requirement that "sample-size",
"generated", and "expires" be unbounded positive integers. It does
not express the limitation that "rating", "confidence", and "normal-
rating" should not have more than three decimal places of precision.
The example in Figure 4 can be compared against the equivalent
example in Appendix H of [RFC8610].
Acknowledgments
Carsten Bormann provided lots of useful guidance and feedback on
JTD's design and the structure of this document.
Evgeny Poberezkin suggested the addition of "nullable", and
thoroughly vetted this document for mistakes and opportunities for
simplification.
Tim Bray suggested the current "ref" model, and the addition of
"enum". Anders Rundgren suggested extending "type" to have more
support for numerical types. James Manger suggested additional
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft JSON Type Definition March 2020
clarifying examples of how integer types work. Adrian Farrel
suggested many improvements to help make this document clearer.
Members of the IETF JSON mailing list - in particular, Pete Cordell,
Phillip Hallam-Baker, Nico Williams, John Cowan, Rob Sayre, and Erik
Wilde - provided lots of useful feedback.
OpenAPI's "discriminator" object [OPENAPI] inspired the
"discriminator" form. [I-D.handrews-json-schema] influenced various
parts of JTD's early design.
Author's Address
Ulysse Carion
Segment.io, Inc
100 California Street
San Francisco 94111
United States of America
Email: ulysse@segment.com
Carion Expires September 17, 2020 [Page 50]