Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and JSON Data Structures
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Barry Leiba <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Protocol Action: 'Concise data definition language (CDDL): a notational convention to express CBOR and JSON data structures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-08.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Concise data definition language (CDDL): a notational convention to express CBOR and JSON data structures' (draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-08.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Adam Roach, Alexey Melnikov and Ben Campbell. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-cddl/
Technical Summary This document proposes a notational convention to express CBOR data structures (RFC 7049). Its main goal is to provide an easy and unambiguous way to express structures for protocol messages and data formats that use CBOR or JSON. Working Group Summary The CBOR working group has been working on the CDDL definition for about a year, and has had productive, healthy discussion that's led to the current document. There is quite wide deployment of CBOR and a lot of interesting in the definition language that's proposed here. As is typical, we had a core set of maybe half a dozen very active participants, with quite a few others chiming in occasionally. The document shepherd thinks the interest and contribution has been robust. There are no significant disagreements that remain, and there's solid working group consensus on what's here now. There have been disagreements about how to represent particular things, but they have been cleanly resolved and none are important to note here. I'll call out the latest one, as it's just come up: at the end of working group last call, Jim Schaad raised an issue on the mailing list about an ambiguity that affects automated parser generation. After discussion on the working group telechat, Carsten proposed text that clarifies that syntax alone may not always be sufficient to understand the meaning of a name, and that semantics of the name must be understood. Document Quality Multiple existing IETF documents are already using CDDL for specifying wire encodings. There are several implementations of CBOR parsers/generators. Personnel Barry Leiba is the document shepherd and Alexey Melnikov is the responsible AD.