Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Bormann
Request for Comments: 9090 Universität Bremen TZI
Category: Standards Track July 2021
ISSN: 2070-1721
Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Object Identifiers
Abstract
The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR), defined in RFC 8949,
is a data format whose design goals include the possibility of
extremely small code size, fairly small message size, and
extensibility without the need for version negotiation.
This document defines CBOR tags for object identifiers (OIDs) and is
the reference document for the IANA registration of the CBOR tags so
defined.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9090.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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 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
1.1. Terminology
2. Object Identifiers
2.1. Requirements on the Byte String Being Tagged
2.2. Preferred Serialization Considerations
2.3. Discussion
3. Basic Examples
3.1. Encoding of the SHA-256 OID
3.2. Encoding of a MIB Relative OID
4. Tag Factoring with Arrays and Maps
4.1. Preferred Serialization Considerations
4.2. Tag Factoring Example: X.500 Distinguished Name
5. CDDL Control Operators
6. CDDL typenames Type Names
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. CBOR Tags
7.2. CDDL Control Operators
8. Security Considerations
9. References
9.1. Normative References
9.2. Informative References
Acknowledgments
Contributors
Author's Address
1. Introduction
The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949] provides
for the interchange of structured data without a requirement for a
pre-agreed schema. [RFC8949] defines a basic set of data types, as
well as a tagging mechanism that enables extending the set of data
types supported via an IANA registry.
This document defines CBOR tags for object identifiers (OIDs)
[X.660], which many IETF protocols carry. The ASN.1 Basic Encoding
Rules (BER) [X.690] specify binary encodings of both (absolute)
object identifiers and relative object identifiers. The contents of
these encodings (the "value" part of BER's type-length-value
structure) can be carried in a CBOR byte string. This document
defines two CBOR tags that cover the two kinds of ASN.1 object
identifiers encoded in this way and a third one to enable a common
optimization. The tags can also be applied to arrays and maps to
efficiently tag all elements of an array or all keys of a map. This
document is the reference document for the IANA registration of the
tags so defined.
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.
The terminology of [RFC8949] applies; in particular, the term "byte"
is used in its now-customary sense as a synonym for "octet". The
verb "to tag (something)" is used to express the construction of a
CBOR tag, with the object (something) as the tag content and a tag
number indicated elsewhere in the sentence (for instance, in a "with"
clause or by the shorthand "an NNN tag" for "a tag with tag number
NNN"). The term "SDNV" (Self-Delimiting Numeric Value) is used as
defined in [RFC6256], with the additional restriction detailed in
Section 2.1 (no leading zeros).
2. Object Identifiers
The International Object Identifier tree [X.660] is a hierarchically
managed space of identifiers, each of which is uniquely represented
as a sequence of unsigned integer values [X.680]. (These integer
values are called "primary integer values" in [X.660] because they
can be accompanied by (not necessarily unambiguous) secondary
identifiers. We ignore the latter and simply use the term "integer
values" here, occasionally calling out their unsignedness. We also
use the term "arc" when the focus is on the edge of the tree labeled
by such an integer value, as well as in the sense of a "long arc",
i.e., a (sub)sequence of such integer values.)
While these sequences can easily be represented in CBOR arrays of
unsigned integers, a more compact representation can often be
achieved by adopting the widely used representation of object
identifiers defined in BER; this representation may also be more
amenable to processing by other software that makes use of object
identifiers.
BER represents the sequence of unsigned integers by concatenating
self-delimiting representations [RFC6256] of each of the integer
values in sequence.
ASN.1 distinguishes absolute object identifiers (ASN.1 type "OBJECT
IDENTIFIER"), which begin at a root arc ([X.660], Clause 3.5.21),
from relative object identifiers (ASN.1 type "RELATIVE-OID"), which
begin relative to some object identifier known from context ([X.680],
Clause 3.8.63). As a special optimization, BER combines the first
two integers in an absolute object identifier into one numeric
identifier by making use of the property of the hierarchy that the
first arc has only three integer values (0, 1, and 2) and the second
arcs under 0 and 1 are limited to the integer values between 0 and
39. (The root arc "joint-iso-itu-t(2)" has no such limitations on
its second arc.) If X and Y are the first two integer values, the
single integer value actually encoded is computed as:
X * 40 + Y
The inverse transformation (again making use of the known ranges of X
and Y) is applied when decoding the object identifier.
Since the semantics of absolute and relative object identifiers
differ and since it is very common for companies to use self-assigned
numbers under the arc "1.3.6.1.4.1" (IANA Private Enterprise Number
OID [IANA.enterprise-numbers]) that adds 5 fixed bytes to an encoded
OID value, this specification defines three tags, collectively called
the "OID tags" here:
Tag number 111: Used to tag a byte string as the [X.690] BER encoding
[X.690] of an absolute object identifier (simply "object
identifier" or "OID").
Tag number 110: Used to tag a byte string as the [X.690] BER encoding
[X.690] of a relative object identifier (also called "relative
OID"). Since the encoding of each number is the same as for Self-Delimiting Self-
Delimiting Numeric Values (SDNVs) [RFC6256], this tag can also be
used for tagging a byte string that contains a sequence of zero or
more SDNVs (or a more application-specific tag can be created for
such an application).
Tag number 112: Structurally like tag 110 but understood to be
relative to "1.3.6.1.4.1" (IANA Private Enterprise Number OID
[IANA.enterprise-numbers]). Hence, the semantics of the result
are that of an absolute object identifier.
2.1. Requirements on the Byte String Being Tagged
To form a valid tag, a byte string tagged with 111, 110, or 112 MUST
be syntactically valid contents (the value part) for a BER
representation of an object identifier (Sections 8.19, 8.20, and (see Table 1):
+============+====================+
| Tag number | Section of [X.690] |
+============+====================+
| 111 | 8.19 |
+------------+--------------------+
| 110 | 8.20 |
+------------+--------------------+
| 112 | 8.20 |
+------------+--------------------+
Table 1: Tag Number and
Section of [X.690], respectively): A X.690 Governing Tag
Content
This is a concatenation of zero or more SDNV values, where each SDNV
value is a sequence of one or more bytes that all have their most
significant bit set, except for the last byte, where it is unset.
Also, the first byte of each SDNV cannot be a leading zero in SDNV's
base-128 arithmetic, so it cannot take the value 0x80 (bullet (c) in
Section 8.1.2.4.2 of [X.690]).
In other words:
* The byte string's first byte, and any byte that follows a byte
that has the most significant bit unset, MUST NOT be 0x80 (this
requirement requires expressing the integer values in their
shortest form, with no leading zeroes).
* The byte string's last byte MUST NOT have the most significant bit
set (this requirement excludes an incomplete final integer value).
If either of these invalid conditions are encountered, the tag is
invalid.
[X.680] restricts RELATIVE-OID values to having at least one arc,
i.e., their encoding would have at least one SDNV. This
specification permits empty relative object identifiers; they may
still be excluded by application semantics.
To facilitate the search for specific object ID values, it is
RECOMMENDED that definite length encoding (see Section 3.2.3 of
[RFC8949]) be used for the byte strings that are used as tag content
for these tags.
The valid set of byte strings can also be expressed using regular
expressions on bytes, using no specific notation but resembling Perl
Compatible Regular Expressions [PCRE]. Unlike typical regular
expressions that operate on character sequences, the following
regular expressions take bytes as their domain, so they can be
applied directly to CBOR byte strings.
For byte strings with tag 111:
"/^(([\x81-\xFF][\x80-\xFF]*)?[\x00-\x7F])+$/"
For byte strings with tags 110 or 112:
"/^(([\x81-\xFF][\x80-\xFF]*)?[\x00-\x7F])*$/"
A tag with tagged content that does not conform to the applicable
regular expression is invalid.
2.2. Preferred Serialization Considerations
For an absolute OID with a prefix of "1.3.6.1.4.1", representations
with both the 111 and 112 tags are applicable, where the
representation with 112 will be five bytes shorter (by leaving out
the prefix h'2b06010401' from the enclosed byte string). This
specification makes that shorter representation the preferred
serialization (see Sections 3.4 and 4.1 of [RFC8949]). Note that
this also implies that the Core Deterministic Encoding Requirements
(Section 4.2.1 of [RFC8949]) require the use of 112 tags instead of
111 tags wherever that is possible.
2.3. Discussion
Staying close to the way object identifiers are encoded in ASN.1 BER
makes back-and-forth translation easy; otherwise, we would choose a
more efficient encoding. Object identifiers in IETF protocols are
serialized in dotted decimal form or BER form, so there is an
advantage in not inventing a third form. Also, expectations of the
cost of encoding object identifiers are based on BER; using a
different encoding might not be aligned with these expectations. If
additional information about an OID is desired, lookup services such
as the OID Resolution Service (ORS) [X.672] and the OID Repository
[OID-INFO] are available.
3. Basic Examples
This section gives simple examples of an absolute and a relative
object identifier, represented via tag numbers 111 and 110,
respectively.
3.1. Encoding of the SHA-256 OID
ASN.1 Value Notation:
{ joint-iso-itu-t(2) country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101)
csor(3) nistalgorithm(4) hashalgs(2) sha256(1) }
Dotted Decimal Notation: 2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.1
06 # UNIVERSAL TAG 6
09 # 9 bytes, primitive
60 86 48 01 65 03 04 02 01 # X.690 Clause 8.19
# | 840 1 | 3 4 2 1 show component encoding
# 2.16 101
Figure 1: SHA-256 OID in BER
D8 6F # tag(111)
49 # 0b010_01001: mt 2, 9 bytes
60 86 48 01 65 03 04 02 01 # X.690 Clause 8.19
Figure 2: SHA-256 OID in CBOR
3.2. Encoding of a MIB Relative OID
Given some OID (e.g., "lowpanMib", assumed to be "1.3.6.1.2.1.226"
[RFC7388]), to which the following is added:
ASN.1 Value Notation:
{ lowpanObjects(1) lowpanStats(1) lowpanOutTransmits(29) }
Dotted Decimal Notation: .1.1.29
0D # UNIVERSAL TAG 13
03 # 3 bytes, primitive
01 01 1D # X.690 Clause 8.20
# 1 1 29 show component encoding
Figure 3: MIB Relative Object Identifier in BER
D8 6E # tag(110)
43 # 0b010_00011: mt 2 (bstr), 3 bytes
01 01 1D # X.690 Clause 8.20
Figure 4: MIB Relative Object Identifier in CBOR
This relative OID saves seven bytes compared to the full OID
encoding.
4. Tag Factoring with Arrays and Maps
The tag content of OID tags can be byte strings (as discussed above)
but also CBOR arrays and maps. The idea in the latter case is that
the tag construct is factored out from each individual item in the
container; the tag is placed on the array or map instead.
When the tag content of an OID tag is an array, this means that the
respective tag is imputed to all elements of the array that are byte
strings, arrays, or maps. (There is no effect on other elements,
including text strings or tags.) For example, when the tag content
of a 111 tag is an array, every array element that is a byte string
is an OID, and every element that is an array or map is, in turn,
treated as discussed here.
When the tag content of an OID tag is a map, this means that a tag
with the same tag number is imputed to all keys in the map that are
byte strings, arrays, or maps; again, there is no effect on keys of
other major types. Note that there is also no effect on the values
in the map.
As a result of these rules, tag factoring in nested arrays and maps
is supported. For example, a 3-dimensional array of OIDs can be
composed by using a single 111 tag containing an array of arrays of
arrays of byte strings. All such byte strings are then considered
OIDs.
4.1. Preferred Serialization Considerations
Where tag factoring with tag number 111 is used, some OIDs enclosed
in the tag may be encoded in a shorter way by using tag number 112
instead of encoding an unadorned byte string. This remains the
preferred serialization (see also Section 2.2). However, this
specification does not make the presence or absence of tag factoring
a preferred serialization; application protocols can define where tag
factoring is to be used or not (and will need to do so if they have
deterministic encoding requirements).
4.2. Tag Factoring Example: X.500 Distinguished Name
Consider the X.500 distinguished name:
+==============================+=============+
| Attribute Types | Attribute |
| | Values |
+==============================+=============+
| c (2.5.4.6) | US |
+------------------------------+-------------+
| l (2.5.4.7) | Los Angeles |
| s (2.5.4.8) | CA |
| postalCode (2.5.4.17) | 90013 |
+------------------------------+-------------+
| street (2.5.4.9) | 532 S Olive |
| | St |
+------------------------------+-------------+
| businessCategory (2.5.4.15) | Public Park |
| buildingName | Pershing |
| (0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.48) | Square |
+------------------------------+-------------+
Table 1: 2: Example X.500 Distinguished Name
Table 1 2 has four "relative distinguished names" (RDNs). The country
(first) and street (third) RDNs are single valued. The second and
fourth RDNs are multivalued.
The equivalent representations in CBOR diagnostic notation (Section 8
of [RFC8949]) and CBOR are:
111([{ h'550406': "US" },
{ h'550407': "Los Angeles",
h'550408': "CA",
h'550411': "90013" },
{ h'550409': "532 S Olive St" },
{ h'55040f': "Public Park",
h'0992268993f22c640130': "Pershing Square" }])
Figure 5: Distinguished Name in CBOR Diagnostic Notation
d8 6f # tag(111)
84 # array(4)
a1 # map(1)
43 550406 # 2.5.4.6 (4)
62 # text(2)
5553 # "US"
a3 # map(3)
43 550407 # 2.5.4.7 (4)
6b # text(11)
4c6f7320416e67656c6573 # "Los Angeles"
43 550408 # 2.5.4.8 (4)
62 # text(2)
4341 # "CA"
43 550411 # 2.5.4.17 (4)
65 # text(5)
3930303133 # "90013"
a1 # map(1)
43 550409 # 2.5.4.9 (4)
6e # text(14)
3533322053204f6c697665205374 # "532 S Olive St"
a2 # map(2)
43 55040f # 2.5.4.15 (4)
6b # text(11)
5075626c6963205061726b # "Public Park"
4a 0992268993f22c640130 # 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.48 (11)
6f # text(15)
5065727368696e6720537175617265 # "Pershing Square"
Figure 6: Distinguished Name in CBOR (109 Bytes)
(This example encoding assumes that all attribute values are UTF-8
strings or can be represented as UTF-8 strings with no loss of
information.)
5. CDDL Control Operators
Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) specifications [RFC8610] may
want to specify the use of SDNVs or SDNV sequences (as defined for
the tag content for tag 110). This document introduces two new
control operators that can be applied to a target value that is a
byte string:
* ".sdnv", with a control type that contains unsigned integers. The
byte string is specified to be encoded as an SDNV (BER encoding)
[RFC6256] for the matching values of the control type.
* ".sdnvseq", with a control type that contains arrays of unsigned
integers. The byte string is specified to be encoded as a
sequence of SDNVs (BER encoding) [RFC6256] that decodes to an
array of unsigned integers matching the control type.
* ".oid", like ".sdnvseq", except that the X*40+Y translation for
absolute OIDs is included (see Figure 8).
Figure 7 shows an example for the use of ".sdnvseq" for a part of a
structure using OIDs that could be used in Figure 6; Figure 8 shows
the same with the ".oid" operator.
country-rdn = {country-oid => country-value}
country-oid = bytes .sdnvseq [85, 4, 6]
country-value = text .size 2
Figure 7: Using .sdnvseq
country-rdn = {country-oid => country-value}
country-oid = bytes .oid [2, 5, 4, 6]
country-value = text .size 2
Figure 8: Using .oid
Note that the control type need not be a literal; for example, "bytes
.oid [2, 5, 4, *uint]" matches all OIDs inside OID arc 2.5.4, "2.5.4",
"attributeType".
6. CDDL typenames Type Names
For the use with CDDL, the typenames type names defined in Figure 9 are
recommended:
oid = #6.111(bstr)
roid = #6.110(bstr)
pen = #6.112(bstr)
Figure 9: Recommended typenames Type Names for CDDL
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. CBOR Tags
IANA has assigned the CBOR tag numbers in Table 2 3 in the 1+1 byte
space (24..255) of the "CBOR Tags" registry [IANA.cbor-tags], with
this document as the specification reference.
+=====+================+============================+===========+
+=====+===============+============================+===========+
| Tag | Data Item | Semantics | Reference |
+=====+================+============================+===========+
+=====+===============+============================+===========+
| 111 | byte string or string, | object identifier (BER | RFC 9090, 9090 |
| | array array, or map | encoding) | Section 2 |
+-----+----------------+----------------------------+-----------+
+-----+---------------+----------------------------+-----------+
| 110 | byte string or string, | relative object identifier | RFC 9090, 9090 |
| | array array, or map | (BER encoding); SDNV | Section 2 |
| | | [RFC6256] sequence | |
+-----+----------------+----------------------------+-----------+
+-----+---------------+----------------------------+-----------+
| 112 | byte string or string, | object identifier (BER | RFC 9090, 9090 |
| | array array, or map | encoding), relative to | Section 2 |
| | | 1.3.6.1.4.1 | |
+-----+----------------+----------------------------+-----------+
+-----+---------------+----------------------------+-----------+
Table 2: 3: New Tag Numbers
7.2. CDDL Control Operators
IANA has assigned the CDDL control operators in Table 3 4 in the "CDDL
Control Operators" registry [IANA.cddl], with this document as the
specification reference.
+==========+=====================+
+==========+===========+
| Name | Reference |
+==========+=====================+
+==========+===========+
| .sdnv | RFC 9090, Section 5 9090 |
+----------+---------------------+
+----------+-----------+
| .sdnvseq | RFC 9090, Section 5 9090 |
+----------+---------------------+
+----------+-----------+
| .oid | RFC 9090, Section 5 9090 |
+----------+---------------------+
+----------+-----------+
Table 3: 4: New CDDL
Control Operators
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations of [RFC8949] apply.
The encodings in Clauses 8.19 and 8.20 of [X.690] are quite compact
and unambiguous but MUST be followed precisely to avoid security
pitfalls. In particular, the requirements set out in Section 2.1 of
this document need to be followed; otherwise, an attacker may be able
to subvert a checking process by submitting alternative
representations that are later taken as the original (or even
something else entirely) by another decoder supposed that is intended to be
protected by the checking process.
OIDs and relative OIDs can always be treated as opaque byte strings.
Actually understanding the structure that was used for generating
them is not necessary, and, except for checking the structure
requirements, it is strongly NOT RECOMMENDED to perform any
processing of this kind (e.g., converting into dotted notation and
back) unless absolutely necessary. If the OIDs are translated into
other representations, the usual security considerations for non-
trivial representation conversions apply; the integer values are
unlimited in range.
An attacker might trick an application into using a byte string
inside a tag-factored data item, where the byte string is not
actually intended to fall under one of the tags defined here. This
may cause the application to emit data with semantics different from
what was intended. Applications therefore need to be restrictive
with respect to what data items they apply tag factoring to.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[IANA.cbor-tags]
IANA, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags>.
[IANA.cddl]
IANA, "Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL)",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/cddl>.
[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>.
[RFC6256] Eddy, W. and E. Davies, "Using Self-Delimiting Numeric
Values in Protocols", RFC 6256, DOI 10.17487/RFC6256, May
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6256>.
[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>.
[RFC8949] 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>.
[X.660] ITU-T, "Information technology - Procedures for the
operation of object identifier registration authorities:
General procedures and top arcs of the international
object identifier tree", ITU-T Recommendation X.660, July
2011, <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.660>.
[X.680] ITU-T, "Information technology - Abstract Syntax Notation
One (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation", ITU-T
Recommendation X.680, August 2015,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.680>.
[X.690] ITU-T, "Information technology - ASN.1 encoding rules:
Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
(DER)", ITU-T Recommendation X.690, August 2015,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.690>.
9.2. Informative References
[IANA.enterprise-numbers]
IANA, "Private Enterprise Numbers",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers>.
[OID-INFO] Orange SA, "Object Identifier (OID) Repository",
<http://www.oid-info.com/>.
[PCRE] "PCRE - Perl Compatible Regular Expressions",
<http://www.pcre.org/>.
[RFC7388] Schoenwaelder, J., Sehgal, A., Tsou, T., and C. Zhou,
"Definition of Managed Objects for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 7388,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7388, October 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7388>.
[X.672] ITU-T, "Information technology - Open systems
interconnection - Object identifier resolution system
(ORS)", ITU-T Recommendation X.672, August 2010,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.672>.
Acknowledgments
Sean Leonard started the work on this document in 2014 with an
elaborate proposal. Jim Schaad provided a significant review of this
document. Rob Wilton's IESG review prompted us to provide preferred
serialization considerations.
Contributors
Sean Leonard
Penango, Inc.
5900 Wilshire Boulevard
21st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90036
United States of America
Email: dev+ietf@seantek.com
Author's Address
Carsten Bormann
Universität Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
D-28359 Bremen
Germany
Phone: +49-421-218-63921
Email: cabo@tzi.org