CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation (EDN)

1.1. Structure of This Document

Section 2 of this document has been built from Section 8 of RFC 8949 [STD94] and Appendix G of [RFC8610]. The latter provided a number of useful extensions to the diagnostic notation originally defined in Section 6 of [RFC7049]. Section 8 of RFC 8949 [STD94] and Appendix G of [RFC8610] have collectively been called "Extended Diagnostic Notation" (EDN), giving the present document its name.¶

After introductory material, Section 3 introduces the concept of application-oriented extension literals and defines the "dt" and "ip" extensions. Section 4 defines mechanisms for dealing with unknown application-oriented literals and deliberately elided information. Section 5 gives the formal syntax of EDN in ABNF, with explanations for some features of and additions to this syntax, as an overall grammar (Section 5.1) and specific grammars for the content of app-string and byte-string literals (Section 5.2). This is followed by the conventional sections for IANA Considerations (6), Security considerations (7), and References (8.1, 8.2). An informational comparison of EDN with CDDL follows in Appendix A.¶

1.2. Terminology

Section 8 of RFC 8949 [STD94] defines the original CBOR diagnostic notation, and Appendix G of [RFC8610] supplies a number of extensions to the diagnostic notation that result in the Extended Diagnostic Notation (EDN). The diagnostic notation extensions include popular features such as embedded CBOR (encoded CBOR data items in byte strings) and comments. A simple diagnostic notation extension that enables representing CBOR sequences was added in Section 4.2 of [RFC8742]. As diagnostic notation is not used in the kind of interchange situations where backward compatibility would pose a significant obstacle, there is little point in not using these extensions.¶

Therefore, when we refer to "diagnostic notation", we mean to include the original notation from Section 8 of RFC 8949 [STD94] as well as the extensions from Appendix G of [RFC8610], Section 4.2 of [RFC8742], and the present document. However, we stick to the abbreviation "EDN" as it has become quite popular and is more sharply distinguishable from other meanings than "DN" would be.¶

In a similar vein, the term "ABNF" in this document refers to the language defined in [STD68] as extended in [RFC7405], where the "characters" of Section 2.3 of RFC 5234 [STD68] are Unicode scalar values.¶

The term "CDDL" (Concise Data Definition Language) refers to the data definition language defined in [RFC8610] and its registered extensions (such as those in [RFC9165]), as well as [I-D.ietf-cbor-update-8610-grammar]. Additional information about the relationship between the two languages EDN and CDDL is captured in Appendix A.¶

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 [BCP14] (RFC2119) (RFC8174) when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶

1.3. (Non-)Objectives of this Document

Section 8 of RFC 8949 [STD94] states the objective of defining a common human-readable diagnostic notation with CBOR. In particular, it states:¶

All actual interchange always happens in the binary format.¶

One important application of EDN is the notation of CBOR data for humans: in specifications, on whiteboards, and for entering test data. A number of features, such as comments inside prefixed string literals, are mainly useful for people-to-people communication via EDN. Programs also often output EDN for diagnostic purposes, such as in error messages or to enable comparison (including generation of diffs via tools) with test data.¶

For comparison with test data, it is often useful if different implementations generate the same (or similar) output for the same CBOR data items. This is comparable to the objectives of deterministic serialization for CBOR data items themselves (Section 4.2 of RFC 8949 [STD94]). However, there are even more representation variants in EDN than in binary CBOR, and there is little point in specifically endorsing a single variant as "deterministic" when other variants may be more useful for human understanding, e.g., the << >> notation as opposed to h''; an EDN generator may have quite a few options that control what presentation variant is most desirable for the application that it is being used for.¶

Because of this, a deterministic representation is not defined for EDN, and there is no expectation for "roundtripping" from EDN to CBOR and back, i.e., for an ability to convert EDN to binary CBOR and back to EDN while achieving exactly the same result as the original input EDN — the original EDN possibly was created by humans or by a different EDN generator.¶

However, there is a certain expectation that EDN generators can be configured to some basic output format, which:¶

• looks like JSON where that is possible;¶

• inserts encoding indicators only where the binary form differs from preferred encoding;¶

• uses hexadecimal representation (h'') for byte strings, not b64'' or embedded CBOR (<<>>);¶

• does not generate elaborate blank space (newlines, indentation) for pretty-printing, but does use common blank spaces such as after , and :.¶

Additional features such as ensuring deterministic map ordering (Section 4.2 of RFC 8949 [STD94]) on output, or even deviating from the basic configuration in some systematic way, can further assist in comparing test data. Information obtained from a CDDL model can help in choosing application-oriented literals or specific string representations such as embedded CBOR or b64'' in the appropriate places.¶

2.1. Comments

For presentation to humans, EDN text may benefit from comments. JSON famously does not provide for comments, and the original diagnostic notation in Section 6 of [RFC7049] inherited this property.¶

EDN now provides two comment syntaxes, which can be used where the syntax allows blank space (outside of constructs such as numbers, string literals, etc.):¶

• inline comments, delimited by slashes ("/"):¶

  In a position that allows blank space, any text within and including a pair of slashes is considered blank space (and thus effectively a comment).¶

• end-of-line comments, delimited by "#" and an end of line (LINE FEED, U+000A):¶

  In a position that allows blank space, any text within and including a pair of a "#" and the end of the line is considered blank space (and thus effectively a comment).¶

Comments can be used to annotate a CBOR structure as in:¶

/grasp-message/ [/M_DISCOVERY/ 1, /session-id/ 10584416,
                 /objective/ [/objective-name/ "opsonize",
                              /D, N, S/ 7, /loop-count/ 105]]

or, combining the use of inline and end-of-line comments:¶

{
 /kty/ 1 : 4, # Symmetric
 /alg/ 3 : 5, # HMAC 256-256
  /k/ -1 : h'6684523ab17337f173500e5728c628547cb37df
             e68449c65f885d1b73b49eae1'
}

2.2. Encoding Indicators

Sometimes it is useful to indicate in the diagnostic notation which of several alternative representations were actually used; for example, a data item written >1.5< by a diagnostic decoder might have been encoded as a half-, single-, or double-precision float.¶

The convention for encoding indicators is that anything starting with an underscore and all immediately following characters that are alphanumeric or underscore is an encoding indicator, and can be ignored by anyone not interested in this information. For example, _ or _3. Encoding indicators are always optional.¶

(In the following, an abbreviation of the form ai=nn gives nn as the numeric value of the field additional information, the low-order 5 bits of the initial byte: see Section 3 of RFC 8949 [STD94].)¶

An underscore followed by a decimal digit n indicates that the preceding item (or, for arrays and maps, the item starting with the preceding bracket or brace) was encoded with an additional information value of ai=24+n. For example, 1.5_1 is a half-precision floating-point number, while 1.5_3 is encoded as double precision.¶

The encoding indicator _ is an abbreviation of what would in full form be _7, which is not used. Therefore, an underscore _ on its own stands for indefinite length encoding (ai=31). (Note that this encoding indicator is only available behind the opening brace/bracket for map and array (Section 2.5.1): strings have a special syntax streamstring for indefinite length encoding except for the special cases ''_ and ""_ (Section 2.4.2).)¶

The encoding indicators _0 to _3 can be used to indicate ai=24 to ai=27, respectively.¶

Surprisingly, Section 8.1 of RFC 8949 [STD94] does not address ai=0 to ai=23 — the assumption seems to have been that preferred serialization (Section 4.1 of RFC 8949 [STD94]) will be used when converting CBOR diagnostic notation to an encoded CBOR data item, so leaving out the encoding indicator for a data item with a preferred serialization will implicitly use ai=0 to ai=23 if that is possible. The present specification allows making this explicit:¶

_i ("immediate") stands for encoding with ai=0 to ai=23.¶

While no pressing use for further values for encoding indicators comes to mind, this is an extension point for EDN; Section 6.2 defines a registry for additional values.¶

Encoding Indicators are discussed in further detail in Section 2.4.2 for indefinite length strings and in Section 2.5.1 for arrays and maps.¶

2.3. Numbers

In addition to JSON's decimal number literals, EDN provides hexadecimal, octal, and binary number literals in the usual C-language notation (octal with 0o prefix present only).¶

The following are equivalent:¶

   4711
   0x1267
   0o11147
   0b1001001100111

As are:¶

   1.5
   0x1.8p0
   0x18p-4

Numbers composed only of digits (of the respective base) are interpreted as CBOR integers (major type 0/1, or where the number cannot be represented in this way, major type 6 with tag 2/3). A leading "+" sign is a no-op, and a leading "-" sign inverts the sign of the number. So 0, 000, +0 all represent the same integer zero, as does -0; 1, 001, +1 and +0001 all stand for the same integer one, and -1 and -0001 both designate the same integer minus one.¶

Using a decimal point (.) and/or an exponent (e for decimal, p for hexadecimal) turns the number into a floating point number (major type 7) instead, irrespective of whether it is an integral number mathematically. Note that, in floating point numbers, 0.0 is not the same number as -0.0, even if they are mathematically equal.¶

The non-finite floating-point numbers Infinity, -Infinity, and NaN are written exactly as in this sentence (this is also a way they can be written in JavaScript, although JSON does not allow them).¶

See Section 5.1, Paragraph 7, Item 3 for additional details of the EDN number syntax.¶

(Note that literals for further number formats, e.g., for representing rational numbers as fractions, or for NaNs with non-zero payloads, can be added as application-oriented literals. Background information beyond that in [STD94] about the representation of numbers in CBOR can be found in the informational document [I-D.bormann-cbor-numbers].)¶

2.4. Strings

CBOR distinguishes two kinds of strings: text strings (the bytes in the string constitute UTF-8 [STD63] text, major type 3), and byte strings (CBOR does not further characterize the bytes that constitute the string, major type 2).¶

EDN notates text strings in a form compatible to that of notating text strings in JSON (i.e., as a double-quoted string literal), with a number of usability extensions. In JSON, no control characters are allowed to occur directly in text string literals; if needed, they can be specified using escapes such as \t or \r. In EDN, string literals additionally can contain newlines (LINEFEED U+000A), which are copied into the resulting string like other characters in the string literal. To deal with variability in platform presentation of newlines, any carriage return characters (U+000D) that may be present in the EDN string literal are not copied into the resulting string (see Section 5.1, Paragraph 7, Item 2). No other control characters can occur directly in a string literal, and the handling of escaped characters (\r etc.) is as in JSON.¶

JSON's escape scheme for characters that are not on Unicode's basic multilingual plane (BMP) is cumbersome. EDN keeps it, but also adds the syntax \u{NNN} where NNN is the Unicode scalar value as a hexadecimal number. This means the following are equivalent (the first o is escaped as \u{6f} for no particular reason):¶

"D\u{6f}mino's \u{1F073} + \u{2318}"   # \u{}-escape 3 chars
"Domino's \uD83C\uDC73 + \u2318"       # escape JSON-like
"Domino's 🁳 + ⌘"                       # unescaped

EDN adds a number of ways to notate byte strings, some of which provide detailed access to the bits within those bytes (see Section 2.4.3). However, quite often, byte strings carry bytes that can be meaningfully notated as UTF-8 text. Analogously to text string literals delimited by double quotes, EDN allows the use of single quotes (without a prefix) to express byte string literals with UTF-8 text; for instance, the following are equivalent:¶

'hello world'
h'68656c6c6f20776f726c64'

The escaping rules of JSON strings are applied equivalently for text-based byte string literals, e.g., \\ stands for a single backslash and \' stands for a single quote. (See Section 5.1, Paragraph 7, Item 7 for details.)¶

   h'48656c6c6f20776f726c64'
   h'48 65 6c 6c 6f 20 77 6f 72 6c 64'
   h'4 86 56c 6c6f
     20776 f726c64'

   h'68656c6c6f20776f726c64'
   h'68 65 6c /doubled l!/ 6c 6f # hello
     20 /space/
     77 6f 72 6c 64' /world/

   <<1>>              h'01'
   <<1, 2>>           h'0102'
   <<"hello", null>>  h'65 68656c6c6f f6'
   <<>>               h''

2.5. Arrays and Maps

EDN borrows the JSON syntax for arrays and maps. (Maps are called objects in JSON.)¶

For maps, EDN extends the JSON syntax by allowing any data item in the map key position (before the colon).¶

JSON requires the use of a comma as a separator character between the elements of an array as well as between the members (key/value pairs) of a map. (These commas also were required in the original diagnostic notation defined in [STD94] and [RFC8610].) The separator commas are now optional in the places where EDN syntax allows commas. (Stylistically, leaving out the commas is more idiomatic when they occur at line breaks.)¶

In addition, EDN also allows, but does not require, a trailing comma before the closing bracket/brace, enabling an easier to maintain "terminator" style of their use.¶

In summary, the following eight examples are all equivalent:¶

[1, 2, 3]
[1, 2, 3,]
[1  2  3]
[1  2  3,]
[1  2, 3]
[1  2, 3,]
[1, 2  3]
[1, 2  3,]

as are¶

{1: "n", "x": "a"}
{1: "n", "x": "a",}
{1: "n"  "x": "a"}
# etc.

{1: "to", 1: "fro"}

2.6. Tags

A tag is written as a decimal unsigned integer for the tag number, followed by the tag content in parentheses; for instance, a date in the format specified by RFC 3339 (ISO 8601) could be notated as:¶

0("2013-03-21T20:04:00Z")¶

or the equivalent epoch-based time as the following:¶

1(1363896240)¶

2.7. Simple values

EDN uses JSON syntax for the simple values True (>true<), False (>false<), and Null (>null<). Undefined is written >undefined< as in JavaScript.¶

Other simple values are given as "simple()" with the appropriate integer in the parentheses. For example, >simple(42)< indicates major type 7, value 42.¶

3.1. The "dt" Extension

The application-extension identifier "dt" is used to notate a date/time literal that can be used as an Epoch-Based Date/Time as per Section 3.4.2 of RFC 8949 [STD94].¶

The text of the literal is a Standard Date/Time String as per Section 3.4.1 of RFC 8949 [STD94].¶

The value of the literal is a number representing the result of a conversion of the given Standard Date/Time String to an Epoch-Based Date/Time. If fractional seconds are given in the text (production time-secfrac in Figure 4), the value is a floating-point number; the value is an integer number otherwise. In the all-upper-case variant of the app-prefix, the value is enclosed in a tag number 1.¶

As an example, the CBOR diagnostic notation¶

dt'1969-07-21T02:56:16Z',
dt'1969-07-21T02:56:16.5Z',
DT'1969-07-21T02:56:16Z'

is equivalent to¶

-14159024,
-14159023.5,
1(-14159024)

See Section 5.2.3 for an ABNF definition for the content of dt literals.¶

3.2. The "ip" Extension

The application-extension identifier "ip" is used to notate an IP address literal that can be used as an IP address as per Section 3 of [RFC9164].¶

The text of the literal is an IPv4address or IPv6address as per Section 3.2.2 of [RFC3986].¶

With the lower-case app-string prefix ip, the value of the literal is a byte string representing the binary IP address. With the upper-case app-string prefix IP, the literal is such a byte string tagged with tag number 54, if an IPv6address is used, or tag number 52, if an IPv4address is used.¶

As an additional case, the upper-case app-string prefix IP'' can be used with an IP address prefix such as 2001:db8::/56 or 192.0.2.0/24, with the equivalent tag as its value. (Note that [RFC9164] representations of address prefixes need to implement the truncation of the address byte string as described in Section 4.2 of [RFC9164]; see example below.) For completeness, the lower-case variant ip'2001:db8::/56' or ip'192.0.2.0/24' stands for an unwrapped [56,h'20010db8'] or [24,h'c00002']; however, in this case the information on whether an address is IPv4 or IPv6 often needs to come from the context.¶

Note that there is no direct representation of the "Interface format" defined in Section 3.1.3 of [RFC9164], an address combined with an optional prefix length and an optional zone identifier. This can be represented as in 52([ip'192.0.2.42',24]), if needed.¶

Examples: the CBOR diagnostic notation¶

ip'192.0.2.42',
IP'192.0.2.42',
IP'192.0.2.0/24',
ip'2001:db8::42',
IP'2001:db8::42',
IP'2001:db8::/64'

is equivalent to¶

h'c000022a',
52(h'c000022a'),
52([24,h'c00002']),
h'20010db8000000000000000000000042',
54(h'20010db8000000000000000000000042'),
54([64,h'20010db8'])

See Section 5.2.4 for an ABNF definition for the content of ip literals.¶

4.1. Handling unknown application-extension identifiers

When ingesting CBOR diagnostic notation, any application-oriented extension literals are usually decoded and transformed into the corresponding data item during ingestion. If an application-extension is not known or not implemented by the ingesting process, this is usually an error and processing has to stop.¶

However, in certain cases, it can be desirable to exceptionally carry an uninterpreted application-oriented extension literal in an ingested data item, allowing to postpone its decoding to a specific later stage of ingestion.¶

This specification defines a CBOR Tag for this purpose: The Diagnostic Notation Unresolved Application-Extension Tag, tag number CPA999 (Section 6.5). The content of this tag is an array of two text strings: The application-extension identifier, and the (escape-processed) content of the single-quoted string. For example, dt'1969-07-21T02:56:16Z' can be provisionally represented as /CPA/ 999(["dt", "1969-07-21T02:56:16Z"]).¶

If a stage of ingestion is not prepared to handle the Unresolved Application-Extension Tag, this is an error and processing has to stop, as if this stage had been ingesting an unknown or unimplemented application-extension literal itself.¶

RFC-Editor: This document uses the CPA (code point allocation) convention described in [I-D.bormann-cbor-draft-numbers]. For each usage of the term "CPA", please remove the prefix "CPA" from the indicated value and replace the residue with the value assigned by IANA; perform an analogous substitution for all other occurrences of the prefix "CPA" in the document. Finally, please remove this note.¶

4.2. Handling information deliberately elided from an EDN document

When using EDN for exposition in a document or on a whiteboard, it is often useful to be able to leave out parts of an EDN document that are not of interest at that point of the exposition.¶

To facilitate this, this specification supports the use of an ellipsis (notated as three or more dots in a row, as in ...) to indicate parts of an EDN document that have been elided (and therefore cannot be reconstructed).¶

Upon ingesting EDN as a representation of a CBOR data item for further processing, the occurrence of an ellipsis usually is an error and processing has to stop.¶

However, it is useful to be able to process EDN documents with ellipses in the automation scripts for the documents using them. This specification defines a CBOR Tag that can be used in the ingestion for this purpose: The Diagnostic Notation Ellipsis Tag, tag number CPA888 (Section 6.5). The content of this tag either is¶

1. null (indicating a data item entirely replaced by an ellipsis), or it is¶

2. an array, the elements of which are alternating between fragments of a string and the actual elisions, represented as ellipses carrying a null as content.¶

Elisions can stand in for entire subtrees, e.g. in:¶

[1, 2, ..., 3]
{ "a": 1,
  "b": ...,
  ...: ...
}

A single ellipsis (or key/value pair of ellipses) can imply eliding multiple elements in an array (members in a map); if more detailed control is required, a data definition language such as CDDL can be employed. (Note that the stand-in form defined here does not allow multiple key/value pairs with an ellipsis as a key: the CBOR data item would not be valid.)¶

Subtree elisions can be represented in a CBOR data item by using /CPA/888(null) as the stand-in:¶

[1, 2, 888(null), 3]
{ "a": 1,
  "b": 888(null),
  888(null): 888(null)
}

Elisions also can be used as part of a (text or byte) string:¶

{ "contract": "Herewith I buy" + ... + "gned: Alice & Bob",
  "signature": h'4711...0815',
}

The example "contract" combines string concatenation via the + operator (Section 5.1) with ellipses; while the example "signature" uses special syntax that allows the use of ellipses between the bytes notated inside h'' literals.¶

String elisions can be represented in a CBOR data item by a stand-in that wraps an array of string fragments alternating with ellipsis indicators:¶

{ "contract": /CPA/888(["Herewith I buy", 888(null),
                        "gned: Alice & Bob"]),
  "signature": 888([h'4711', 888(null), h'0815']),
}

Note that the use of elisions is different from "commenting out" EDN text, e.g.:¶

{ "signature": h'4711/.../0815',
  # ...: ...
}

The consumer of this EDN will ignore the comments and therefore will have no idea after ingestion that some information has been elided; validation steps may then simply fail instead of being informed about the elisions.¶

5.1. Overall ABNF Definition for Extended Diagnostic Notation

This subsection provides an overall ABNF definition for the syntax of CBOR extended diagnostic notation.¶

For simplicity, the internal parsing for the built-in EDN prefixes is specified in the same way. ABNF definitions for h'' and b64'' are provided in Section 5.2.1 and Section 5.2.2. However, the prefixes b32'' and h32'' are not in wide use and an ABNF definition in this document could therefore not be based on implementation experience.¶

seq             = S [item S *(OC item S) OC]
one-item        = S item S
item            = map / array / tagged
                / number / simple
                / string / streamstring

string1         = (tstr / bstr) spec
string1e        = string1 / ellipsis
ellipsis        = 3*"." ; "..." or more dots
string          = string1e *(S "+" S string1e)

number          = (hexfloat / hexint / octint / binint
                   / decnumber / nonfin) spec
sign            = "+" / "-"
decnumber       = [sign] (1*DIGIT ["." *DIGIT] / "." 1*DIGIT)
                         ["e" [sign] 1*DIGIT]
hexfloat        = [sign] "0x" (1*HEXDIG ["." *HEXDIG] / "." 1*HEXDIG)
                         "p" [sign] 1*DIGIT
hexint          = [sign] "0x" 1*HEXDIG
octint          = [sign] "0o" 1*ODIGIT
binint          = [sign] "0b" 1*BDIGIT
nonfin          = %s"Infinity"
                / %s"-Infinity"
                / %s"NaN"
simple          = %s"false"
                / %s"true"
                / %s"null"
                / %s"undefined"
                / %s"simple(" S item S ")"
uint            = "0" / DIGIT1 *DIGIT
tagged          = uint spec "(" S item S ")"

app-prefix      = lcalpha *lcalnum ; including h and b64
                / ucalpha *ucalnum ; tagged variant, if defined
app-string      = app-prefix sqstr
sqstr           = "'" *single-quoted "'"
bstr            = app-string / sqstr / embedded
                  ; app-string could be any type
tstr            = DQUOTE *double-quoted DQUOTE
embedded        = "<<" seq ">>"

array           = "[" spec S [item S *(OC item S) OC] "]"
map             = "{" spec S [kp S *(OC kp S) OC] "}"
kp              = item S ":" S item

; We allow %x09 HT in prose, but not in strings
blank           = %x09 / %x0A / %x0D / %x20
non-slash       = blank / %x21-2e / %x30-D7FF / %xE000-10FFFF
non-lf          = %x09 / %x0D / %x20-D7FF / %xE000-10FFFF
S               = *blank *(comment *blank)
comment         = "/" *non-slash "/"
                / "#" *non-lf %x0A

; optional comma (ignored)
OC              = ["," S]

; check semantically that strings are either all text or all bytes
; note that there must be at least one string to distinguish
streamstring    = "(_" S string S *(OC string S) OC ")"
spec            = ["_" *wordchar]

double-quoted   = unescaped
                / "'"
                / "\" DQUOTE
                / "\" escapable

single-quoted   = unescaped
                / DQUOTE
                / "\" "'"
                / "\" escapable

escapable       = %s"b" ; BS backspace U+0008
                / %s"f" ; FF form feed U+000C
                / %s"n" ; LF line feed U+000A
                / %s"r" ; CR carriage return U+000D
                / %s"t" ; HT horizontal tab U+0009
                / "/"   ; / slash (solidus) U+002F (JSON!)
                / "\"   ; \ backslash (reverse solidus) U+005C
                / (%s"u" hexchar) ;  uXXXX      U+XXXX

hexchar         = "{" (1*"0" [ hexscalar ] / hexscalar) "}"
                / non-surrogate
                / (high-surrogate "\" %s"u" low-surrogate)
non-surrogate   = ((DIGIT / "A"/"B"/"C" / "E"/"F") 3HEXDIG)
                / ("D" ODIGIT 2HEXDIG )
high-surrogate  = "D" ("8"/"9"/"A"/"B") 2HEXDIG
low-surrogate   = "D" ("C"/"D"/"E"/"F") 2HEXDIG
hexscalar       = "10" 4HEXDIG / HEXDIG1 4HEXDIG
                / non-surrogate / 1*3HEXDIG

; Note that no other C0 characters are allowed, including %x09 HT
unescaped       = %x0A ; new line
                / %x0D ; carriage return -- ignored on input
                / %x20-21
                     ; omit 0x22 "
                / %x23-26
                     ; omit 0x27 '
                / %x28-5B
                     ; omit 0x5C \
                / %x5D-D7FF ; skip surrogate code points
                / %xE000-10FFFF

DQUOTE          = %x22    ; " double quote
DIGIT           = %x30-39 ; 0-9
DIGIT1          = %x31-39 ; 1-9
ODIGIT          = %x30-37 ; 0-7
BDIGIT          = %x30-31 ; 0-1
HEXDIG          = DIGIT / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
HEXDIG1         = DIGIT1 / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
; Note: double-quoted strings as in "A" are case-insensitive in ABNF
lcalpha         = %x61-7A ; a-z
lcalnum         = lcalpha / DIGIT
ucalpha         = %x41-5A ; A-Z
ucalnum         = ucalpha / DIGIT
wordchar        = "_" / lcalnum / ucalpha ; [_a-z0-9A-Z]

While an ABNF grammar defines the set of character strings that are considered to be valid EDN by this ABNF, the mapping of these character strings into the generic data model of CBOR is not always obvious.¶

The following additional items should help in the interpretation:¶

• As mentioned in the terminology (Section 1.2), the ABNF terminal values in this document define Unicode scalar values (characters) rather than their UTF-8 encoding. For example, the Unicode PLACE OF INTEREST SIGN (U+2318) would be defined in ABNF as %x2318.¶

• Unicode CARRIAGE RETURN (U+000D, often seen escaped as "\r" in many programming languages) that exist in the input (unescaped) are ignored as if they were not in the input wherever they appear. This is most important when they are found in (text or byte) string contexts (see the "unescaped" ABNF rule). On some platforms, a carriage return is always added in front of a LINE FEED (U+000A, also often seen escaped as "\n" in many programming languages), but on other platforms, carriage returns are not used at line breaks. The intent behind ignoring unescaped carriage returns is to ensure that input generated or processed on either of these kinds of platforms will generate the same bytes in the CBOR data items created from that input. (Platforms that use just a CARRIAGE RETURN to signify an end of line are no longer relevant and the files they produce are out of scope for this document.) If a carriage return is needed in the CBOR data item, it can be added explicitly using the escaped form \r.¶

• decnumber stands for an integer in the usual decimal notation, unless at least one of the optional parts starting with "." and "e" are present, in which case it stands for a floating point value in the usual decimal notation. Note that the grammar now allows 3. for 3.0 and .3 for 0.3 (also for hexadecimal floating point below); implementers are advised that some platform numeric parsers accept only a subset of the floating point syntax in this document and may require some preprocessing to use here.¶

• hexint, octint, and binint stand for an integer in the usual base 16/hexadecimal ("0x"), base 8/octal ("0o"), or base 2/binary ("0b") notation. hexfloat stands for a floating point number in the usual hexadecimal notation (which uses a mantissa in hexadecimal and an exponent in decimal notation, see Section 5.12.3 of [IEEE754], Section 6.4.4.2 of [C], or Section 5.13.4 of [Cplusplus]; floating-suffix/floating-point-suffix from the latter two is not used here).¶

• For hexint, octint, binint, and when decnumber stands for an integer, the corresponding CBOR data item is represented using major type 0 or 1 if possible, or using tag 2 or 3 if not. In the latter case, this specification does not define any encoding indicators that apply. If fine control over encoding is desired, this can be expressed by being explicit about the representation as a tag: E.g., 987654321098765432310, which is equivalent to 2(h'35 8a 75 04 38 f3 80 f5 f6') in its preferred serialization, might be written as 2_3(h'00 00 00 35 8a 75 04 38 f3 80 f5 f6'_1) if leading zeros need to be added during serialization to obtain specific sizes for tag head, byte string head, and the overall byte string.¶

  When decnumber stands for a floating point value, and for hexfloat and nonfin, a floating point data item with major type 7 is used in preferred serialization (unless modified by an encoding indicator, which then needs to be _1, _2, or _3). For this, the number range needs to fit into an [IEEE754] binary64 (or the size corresponding to the encoding indicator), and the precision will be adjusted to binary64 before further applying preferred serialization (or to the size corresponding to the encoding indicator). Tag 4/5 representations are not generated in these cases. Future app-prefixes could be defined to allow more control for obtaining a tag 4/5 representation directly from a hex or decimal floating point literal.¶

• spec stands for an encoding indicator. See Section 2.2 for details.¶

• Extended diagnostic notation allows a (text or byte) string to be built up from multiple (text or byte) string literals, separated by a + operator; these are then concatenated into a single string.¶

string, string1e, string1, and ellipsis realize: (1) the representation of strings in this form split up into multiple chunks, and (2) the use of ellipses to represent elisions (Section 4.2).¶

Note that the syntax defined here for concatenation of components uses an explicit + operator between the components to be concatenated (Appendix G.4 of [RFC8610] used simple juxtaposition, which was not widely implemented and got in the way of making the use of commas optional in other places via the rule OC).¶

Text strings and byte strings do not mix within such a concatenation, except that byte string literal notation can be used inside a sequence of concatenated text string notation literals, to encode characters that may be better represented in an encoded way. The following four text string values (adapted from Appendix G.4 of [RFC8610] by updating to explicit + operators) are equivalent:¶

  "Hello world"
  "Hello " + "world"
  "Hello" + h'20' + "world"
  "" + h'48656c6c6f20776f726c64' + ""

Similarly, the following byte string values are equivalent:¶

  'Hello world'
  'Hello ' + 'world'
  'Hello ' + h'776f726c64'
  'Hello' + h'20' + 'world'
  '' + h'48656c6c6f20776f726c64' + '' + b64''
  h'4 86 56c 6c6f' + h' 20776 f726c64'

The semantic processing of these constructs is governed by the following rules:¶

• A single ... is a general ellipsis, which by itself can stand for any data item. Multiple adjacent concatenated ellipses are equivalent to a single ellipsis.¶

• An ellipsis can be concatenated (on one or both sides) with string chunks (string1); the result is a CBOR tag number CPA888 that contains an array with joined together spans of such chunks plus the ellipses represented by 888(null).¶

• If there is no ellipsis in the concatenated list, the result of processing the list will always be a single item.¶

• The bytes in the concatenated sequence of string chunks are simply joined together, proceeding from left to right. If the left hand side of a concatenation is a text string, the joining operation results in a text string, and that result needs to be valid UTF-8. If the left hand side is a byte string, the right hand side also needs to be a byte string.¶

• Some of the strings may be app-strings. If the result type of the app-string is an actual (text or byte) string, joining of those string chunks occurs as with chunks directly notated as string literals; otherwise the occurrence of more than one app-string or an app-string together with a directly notated string cannot be processed.¶

5.2. ABNF Definitions for app-string Content

This subsection provides ABNF definitions for the content of application-oriented extension literals defined in [STD94] and in this specification. These grammars describe the decoded content of the sqstr components that combine with the application-extension identifiers used as prefixes to form application-oriented extension literals. Each of these may make integrate ABNF rules defined in Figure 1, which are not always repeated here.¶

app-string-h    = S *(HEXDIG S HEXDIG S / ellipsis S)
                  ["#" *non-lf]
ellipsis        = 3*"."
HEXDIG          = DIGIT / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
DIGIT           = %x30-39 ; 0-9
blank           = %x09 / %x0A / %x0D / %x20
non-slash       = blank / %x21-2e / %x30-10FFFF
non-lf          = %x09 / %x0D / %x20-D7FF / %xE000-10FFFF
S               = *blank *(comment *blank )
comment         = "/" *non-slash "/"
                / "#" *non-lf %x0A

app-string-b64  = B *(4(b64dig B))
                  [b64dig B b64dig B ["=" B "=" / b64dig B ["="]] B]
                  ["#" *inon-lf]
b64dig          = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "_" / "+" / "/"
B               = *iblank *(icomment *iblank)
iblank          = %x0A / %x20  ; Not HT or CR (gone)
icomment        = "#" *inon-lf %x0A
inon-lf         = %x20-D7FF / %xE000-10FFFF
ALPHA           = %x41-5a / %x61-7a
DIGIT           = %x30-39

app-string-dt   = date-time

date-fullyear   = 4DIGIT
date-month      = 2DIGIT  ; 01-12
date-mday       = 2DIGIT  ; 01-28, 01-29, 01-30, 01-31 based on
                          ; month/year
time-hour       = 2DIGIT  ; 00-23
time-minute     = 2DIGIT  ; 00-59
time-second     = 2DIGIT  ; 00-58, 00-59, 00-60 based on leap sec
                          ; rules
time-secfrac    = "." 1*DIGIT
time-numoffset  = ("+" / "-") time-hour ":" time-minute
time-offset     = "Z" / time-numoffset

partial-time    = time-hour ":" time-minute ":" time-second
                  [time-secfrac]
full-date       = date-fullyear "-" date-month "-" date-mday
full-time       = partial-time time-offset

date-time       = full-date "T" full-time
DIGIT           =  %x30-39 ; 0-9

app-string-ip = IPaddress ["/" uint]

IPaddress     = IPv4address
              / IPv6address

; ABNF from RFC 3986, re-arranged for PEG compatibility:

IPv6address   =                            6( h16 ":" ) ls32
              /                       "::" 5( h16 ":" ) ls32
              / [ h16               ] "::" 4( h16 ":" ) ls32
              / [ h16 *1( ":" h16 ) ] "::" 3( h16 ":" ) ls32
              / [ h16 *2( ":" h16 ) ] "::" 2( h16 ":" ) ls32
              / [ h16 *3( ":" h16 ) ] "::"    h16 ":"   ls32
              / [ h16 *4( ":" h16 ) ] "::"              ls32
              / [ h16 *5( ":" h16 ) ] "::"              h16
              / [ h16 *6( ":" h16 ) ] "::"

h16           = 1*4HEXDIG
ls32          = ( h16 ":" h16 ) / IPv4address
IPv4address   = dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet
dec-octet     = "25" %x30-35         ; 250-255
              / "2" %x30-34 DIGIT    ; 200-249
              / "1" 2DIGIT           ; 100-199
              / %x31-39 DIGIT        ; 10-99
              / DIGIT                ; 0-9

HEXDIG        = DIGIT / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
DIGIT         = %x30-39 ; 0-9
DIGIT1        = %x31-39 ; 1-9
uint          = "0" / DIGIT1 *DIGIT

6.1. CBOR Diagnostic Notation Application-extension Identifiers Registry

IANA is requested to create an "Application-Extension Identifiers" registry in a new "CBOR Diagnostic Notation" registry group [IANA.cbor-diagnostic-notation], with the policy "expert review" (Section 4.5 of RFC 8126 [BCP26]).¶

Each entry in the registry must include:¶

Application-Extension Identifier:

a lower case ASCII [STD80] string that starts with a letter and can contain letters and digits after that ([a-z][a-z0-9]*). No other entry in the registry can have the same application-extension identifier.¶

Description:

a brief description¶

Change Controller:

(see Section 2.3 of RFC 8126 [BCP26])¶

Reference:

a reference document that provides a description of the application-extension identifier¶

The initial content of the registry is shown in Table 1; all initial entries have the Change Controller "IETF".¶

6.2. Encoding Indicators

IANA is requested to create an "Encoding Indicators" registry in the newly created "CBOR Diagnostic Notation" registry group [IANA.cbor-diagnostic-notation], with the policy "specification required" (Section 4.6 of RFC 8126 [BCP26]).¶

Each entry in the registry must include:¶

Encoding Indicator:

an ASCII [STD80] string that starts with an underscore letter and can contain zero or more underscores, letters and digits after that (_[_A-Za-z0-9]*). No other entry in the registry can have the same Encoding Indicator.¶

Description:

a brief description. This description may employ an abbreviation of the form ai=nn, where nn is the numeric value of the field additional information, the low-order 5 bits of the initial byte (see Section 3 of RFC 8949 [STD94]).¶

Change Controller:

(see Section 2.3 of RFC 8126 [BCP26])¶

Reference:

a reference document that provides a description of the application-extension identifier¶

The initial content of the registry is shown in Table 2; all initial entries have the Change Controller "IETF".¶

6.3. Media Type

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

Type name:

application¶

Subtype name:

cbor-diagnostic¶

Required parameters:

N/A¶

Optional parameters:

N/A¶

Encoding considerations:

binary (UTF-8)¶

Security considerations:

Section 7 of RFC XXXX¶

Interoperability considerations:

none¶

Published specification:

Section 6.3 of RFC XXXX¶

Applications that use this media type:

Tools interchanging a human-readable form of CBOR¶

Fragment identifier considerations:

The syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers is as specified for "application/cbor". (At publication of RFC XXXX, there is no fragment identification syntax defined for "application/cbor".)¶

Additional information:

Deprecated alias names for this type:

N/A¶

Magic number(s):

N/A¶

File extension(s):

.diag¶

Macintosh file type code(s):

N/A¶

Person & email address to contact for further information:

CBOR WG mailing list (cbor@ietf.org), or IETF Applications and Real-Time Area (art@ietf.org)¶

Intended usage:

LIMITED USE¶

Restrictions on usage:

CBOR diagnostic notation represents CBOR data items, which are the format intended for actual interchange. The media type application/cbor-diagnostic is intended to be used within documents about CBOR data items, in diagnostics for human consumption, and in other representations of CBOR data items that are necessarily text-based such as in configuration files or other data edited by humans, often under source-code control.¶

Author/Change controller:

IETF¶

Provisional registration:

no¶

6.4. Content-Format

IANA is requested to register a Content-Format number in the "CoAP Content-Formats" sub-registry, within the "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters" Registry [IANA.core-parameters], as follows:¶

TBD1 is to be assigned from the space 256..9999, according to the procedure "IETF Review or IESG Approval", preferably a number less than 1000.¶

6.5. Stand-in Tags

RFC-Editor: This document uses the CPA (code point allocation) convention described in [I-D.bormann-cbor-draft-numbers]. For each usage of the term "CPA", please remove the prefix "CPA" from the indicated value and replace the residue with the value assigned by IANA; perform an analogous substitution for all other occurrences of the prefix "CPA" in the document. Finally, please remove this note.¶

In the "CBOR Tags" registry [IANA.cbor-tags], IANA is requested to assign the tags in Table 5 from the "specification required" space (suggested assignments: 888 and 999), with the present document as the specification reference.¶

8.1. Normative References

[BCP14]

Best Current Practice 14, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp14>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:

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>.

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>.

[BCP26]

Best Current Practice 26, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp26>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:

Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

[C]

International Organization for Standardization, "Information technology — Programming languages — C", Fourth Edition, ISO/IEC 9899:2018, June 2018, <https://www.iso.org/standard/74528.html>. The text of the standard is also available via https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2310.pdf

[Cplusplus]

International Organization for Standardization, "Programming languages — C++", Sixth Edition, ISO/IEC 14882:2020, December 2020, <https://www.iso.org/standard/79358.html>. The text of the standard is also available via https://isocpp.org/files/papers/N4860.pdf

[IANA.cbor-tags]

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

[IANA.core-parameters]

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

[IANA.media-types]

IANA, "Media Types", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types>.

[IEEE754]

IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", IEEE Std 754-2019, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2019.8766229, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8766229>.

[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/rfc/rfc3339>.

[RFC3986]

Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986>.

[RFC7405]

Kyzivat, P., "Case-Sensitive String Support in ABNF", RFC 7405, DOI 10.17487/RFC7405, December 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7405>.

[RFC8742]

Bormann, C., "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Sequences", RFC 8742, DOI 10.17487/RFC8742, February 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8742>.

[RFC9164]

Richardson, M. and C. Bormann, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses and Prefixes", RFC 9164, DOI 10.17487/RFC9164, December 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9164>.

[STD63]

Internet Standard 63, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std63>.
At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following:

Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.

[STD68]

Internet Standard 68, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std68>.
At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following:

Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

[STD80]

Internet Standard 80, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std80>.
At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following:

Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80, RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>.

[STD94]

Internet Standard 94, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std94>.
At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following:

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>.

8.2. Informative References

[I-D.bormann-cbor-numbers]

Bormann, C., "On Numbers in CBOR", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-bormann-cbor-numbers-00, 8 July 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bormann-cbor-numbers-00>.

[I-D.bormann-t2trg-deref-id]

Bormann, C. and C. Amsüss, "The "dereferenceable identifier" pattern", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-bormann-t2trg-deref-id-04, 1 September 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bormann-t2trg-deref-id-04>.

[I-D.ietf-cbor-edn-e-ref]

Bormann, C., "External References to Values in CBOR Diagnostic Notation (EDN)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-cbor-edn-e-ref-00, 27 June 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cbor-edn-e-ref-00>.

[I-D.ietf-cbor-update-8610-grammar]

Bormann, C., "Updates to the CDDL grammar of RFC 8610", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-cbor-update-8610-grammar-06, 24 June 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cbor-update-8610-grammar-06>.

[RFC4648]

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

[RFC7049]

Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049, October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7049>.

[RFC7493]

Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493, DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7493>.

[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/rfc/rfc8610>.

[RFC9165]

Bormann, C., "Additional Control Operators for the Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL)", RFC 9165, DOI 10.17487/RFC9165, December 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9165>.

[RFC9290]

Fossati, T. and C. Bormann, "Concise Problem Details for Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) APIs", RFC 9290, DOI 10.17487/RFC9290, October 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9290>.

[RFC9512]

Polli, R., Wilde, E., and E. Aro, "YAML Media Type", RFC 9512, DOI 10.17487/RFC9512, February 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9512>.

[STD90]

Internet Standard 90, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std90>.
At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following:

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>.

[YAML]

Ben-Kiki, O., Evans, C., and I. döt Net, "YAML Ain't Markup Language (YAML™) Version 1.2", Revision 1.2.2, 1 October 2021, <https://yaml.org/spec/1.2.2/>.