Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)

1.1. Objectives

The objectives of CBOR, roughly in decreasing order of importance, are:¶

1. The representation must be able to unambiguously encode most common data formats used in Internet standards.¶

   • It must represent a reasonable set of basic data types and structures using binary encoding. "Reasonable" here is largely influenced by the capabilities of JSON, with the major addition of binary byte strings. The structures supported are limited to arrays and trees; loops and lattice-style graphs are not supported.¶
   • There is no requirement that all data formats be uniquely encoded; that is, it is acceptable that the number "7" might be encoded in multiple different ways.¶

2. The code for an encoder or decoder must be able to be compact in order to support systems with very limited memory, processor power, and instruction sets.¶

   • An encoder and a decoder need to be implementable in a very small amount of code (for example, in class 1 constrained nodes as defined in [RFC7228]).¶
   • The format should use contemporary machine representations of data (for example, not requiring binary-to-decimal conversion).¶

3. Data must be able to be decoded without a schema description.¶

   • Similar to JSON, encoded data should be self-describing so that a generic decoder can be written.¶

4. The serialization must be reasonably compact, but data compactness is secondary to code compactness for the encoder and decoder.¶

   • "Reasonable" here is bounded by JSON as an upper bound in size, and by the implementation complexity limiting how much effort can go into achieving that compactness. Using either general compression schemes or extensive bit-fiddling violates the complexity goals.¶

5. The format must be applicable to both constrained nodes and high-volume applications.¶

   • This means it must be reasonably frugal in CPU usage for both encoding and decoding. This is relevant both for constrained nodes and for potential usage in applications with a very high volume of data.¶

6. The format must support all JSON data types for conversion to and from JSON.¶

   • It must support a reasonable level of conversion as long as the data represented is within the capabilities of JSON. It must be possible to define a unidirectional mapping towards JSON for all types of data.¶

7. The format must be extensible, and the extended data must be decodable by earlier decoders.¶

   • The format is designed for decades of use.¶
   • The format must support a form of extensibility that allows fallback so that a decoder that does not understand an extension can still decode the message.¶
   • The format must be able to be extended in the future by later IETF standards.¶

1.2. 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 term "byte" is used in its now-customary sense as a synonym for "octet". All multi-byte values are encoded in network byte order (that is, most significant byte first, also known as "big-endian").¶

This specification makes use of the following terminology:¶

Data item:

A single piece of CBOR data. The structure of a data item may contain zero, one, or more nested data items. The term is used both for the data item in representation format and for the abstract idea that can be derived from that by a decoder; the former can be addressed specifically by using "encoded data item".¶

Decoder:

A process that decodes a well-formed encoded CBOR data item and makes it available to an application. Formally speaking, a decoder contains a parser to break up the input using the syntax rules of CBOR, as well as a semantic processor to prepare the data in a form suitable to the application.¶

Encoder:

A process that generates the (well-formed) representation format of a CBOR data item from application information.¶

Data Stream:

A sequence of zero or more data items, not further assembled into a larger containing data item (see [RFC8742] for one application). The independent data items that make up a data stream are sometimes also referred to as "top-level data items".¶

Well-formed:

A data item that follows the syntactic structure of CBOR. A well-formed data item uses the initial bytes and the byte strings and/or data items that are implied by their values as defined in CBOR and does not include following extraneous data. CBOR decoders by definition only return contents from well-formed data items.¶

Valid:

A data item that is well-formed and also follows the semantic restrictions that apply to CBOR data items (Section 5.3).¶

Expected:

Besides its normal English meaning, the term "expected" is used to describe requirements beyond CBOR validity that an application has on its input data. Well-formed (processable at all), valid (checked by a validity-checking generic decoder), and expected (checked by the application) form a hierarchy of layers of acceptability.¶

Stream decoder:

A process that decodes a data stream and makes each of the data items in the sequence available to an application as they are received.¶

Terms and concepts for floating-point values such as Infinity, NaN (not a number), negative zero, and subnormal are defined in [IEEE754].¶

Where bit arithmetic or data types are explained, this document uses the notation familiar from the programming language C [C], except that "**" denotes exponentiation and ".." denotes a range that includes both ends given. Examples and pseudocode assume that signed integers use two's complement representation and that right shifts of signed integers perform sign extension; these assumptions are also specified in Sections 6.8.2 and 7.6.7 of the 2020 version of C++, successor of [Cplusplus17].¶

Similar to the "0x" notation for hexadecimal numbers, numbers in binary notation are prefixed with "0b". Underscores can be added to a number solely for readability, so 0b00100001 (0x21) might be written 0b001_00001 to emphasize the desired interpretation of the bits in the byte; in this case, it is split into three bits and five bits. Encoded CBOR data items are sometimes given in the "0x" or "0b" notation; these values are first interpreted as numbers as in C and are then interpreted as byte strings in network byte order, including any leading zero bytes expressed in the notation.¶

Words may be italicized for emphasis; in the plain text form of this specification this is indicated by surrounding words with underscore characters. Verbatim text (e.g., names from a programming language) may be set in monospace type; in plain text this is approximated somewhat ambiguously by surrounding the text in double quotes (which also retain their usual meaning).¶

2.1. Extended Generic Data Models

This basic generic data model comes pre-extended by the registration of a number of simple values and tag numbers right in this document, such as:¶

• false, true, null, and undefined (simple values identified by 20..23)¶
• integer and floating-point values with a larger range and precision than the above (tag numbers 2 to 5)¶
• application data types such as a point in time or an RFC 3339 date/time string (tag numbers 1, 0)¶

Further elements of the extended generic data model can be (and have been) defined via the IANA registries created for CBOR. Even if such an extension is unknown to a generic encoder or decoder, data items using that extension can be passed to or from the application by representing them at the interface to the application within the basic generic data model, i.e., as generic simple values or generic tags.¶

In other words, the basic generic data model is stable as defined in this document, while the extended generic data model expands by the registration of new simple values or tag numbers, but never shrinks.¶

While there is a strong expectation that generic encoders and decoders can represent false, true, and null (undefined is intentionally omitted) in the form appropriate for their programming environment, implementation of the data model extensions created by tags is truly optional and a matter of implementation quality.¶

2.2. Specific Data Models

The specific data model for a CBOR-based protocol usually subsets the extended generic data model and assigns application semantics to the data items within this subset and its components. When documenting such specific data models, where it is desired to specify the types of data items, it is preferred to identify the types by the names they have in the generic data model ("negative integer", "array") instead of by referring to aspects of their CBOR representation ("major type 1", "major type 4").¶

Specific data models can also specify what values (including values of different types) are equivalent for the purposes of map keys and encoder freedom. For example, in the generic data model, a valid map MAY have both 0 and 0.0 as keys, and an encoder MUST NOT encode 0.0 as an integer (major type 0, Section 3.1). However, if a specific data model declares that floating-point and integer representations of integral values are equivalent, using both map keys 0 and 0.0 in a single map would be considered duplicates, even while encoded as different major types, and so invalid; and an encoder could encode integral-valued floats as integers or vice versa, perhaps to save encoded bytes.¶

3.1. Major Types

The following lists the major types and the additional information and other bytes associated with the type.¶

Major type 0:

an unsigned integer in the range 0..2**64-1 inclusive. The value of the encoded item is the argument itself. For example, the integer 10 is denoted as the one byte 0b000_01010 (major type 0, additional information 10). The integer 500 would be 0b000_11001 (major type 0, additional information 25) followed by the two bytes 0x01f4, which is 500 in decimal.¶

Major type 1:

a negative integer in the range -2**64..-1 inclusive. The value of the item is -1 minus the argument. For example, the integer -500 would be 0b001_11001 (major type 1, additional information 25) followed by the two bytes 0x01f3, which is 499 in decimal.¶

Major type 2:

a byte string. The number of bytes in the string is equal to the argument. For example, a byte string whose length is 5 would have an initial byte of 0b010_00101 (major type 2, additional information 5 for the length), followed by 5 bytes of binary content. A byte string whose length is 500 would have 3 initial bytes of 0b010_11001 (major type 2, additional information 25 to indicate a two-byte length) followed by the two bytes 0x01f4 for a length of 500, followed by 500 bytes of binary content.¶

Major type 3:

a text string (Section 2), encoded as UTF-8 ([RFC3629]). The number of bytes in the string is equal to the argument. A string containing an invalid UTF-8 sequence is well-formed but invalid (Section 1.2). This type is provided for systems that need to interpret or display human-readable text, and allows the differentiation between unstructured bytes and text that has a specified repertoire (that of Unicode) and encoding (UTF-8). In contrast to formats such as JSON, the Unicode characters in this type are never escaped. Thus, a newline character (U+000A) is always represented in a string as the byte 0x0a, and never as the bytes 0x5c6e (the characters "\" and "n") nor as 0x5c7530303061 (the characters "\", "u", "0", "0", "0", and "a").¶

Major type 4:

an array of data items. In other formats, arrays are also called lists, sequences, or tuples (a "CBOR sequence" is something slightly different, though [RFC8742]). The argument is the number of data items in the array. Items in an array do not need to all be of the same type. For example, an array that contains 10 items of any type would have an initial byte of 0b100_01010 (major type 4, additional information 10 for the length) followed by the 10 remaining items.¶

Major type 5:

a map of pairs of data items. Maps are also called tables, dictionaries, hashes, or objects (in JSON). A map is comprised of pairs of data items, each pair consisting of a key that is immediately followed by a value. The argument is the number of pairs of data items in the map. For example, a map that contains 9 pairs would have an initial byte of 0b101_01001 (major type 5, additional information 9 for the number of pairs) followed by the 18 remaining items. The first item is the first key, the second item is the first value, the third item is the second key, and so on. Because items in a map come in pairs, their total number is always even: A map that contains an odd number of items (no value data present after the last key data item) is not well-formed. A map that has duplicate keys may be well-formed, but it is not valid, and thus it causes indeterminate decoding; see also Section 5.6.¶

Major type 6:

a tagged data item ("tag") whose tag number, an integer in the range 0..2**64-1 inclusive, is the argument and whose enclosed data item ("tag content") is the single encoded data item that follows the head. See Section 3.4.¶

Major type 7:

floating-point numbers and simple values, as well as the "break" stop code. See Section 3.3.¶

These eight major types lead to a simple table showing which of the 256 possible values for the initial byte of a data item are used (Table 7).¶

In major types 6 and 7, many of the possible values are reserved for future specification. See Section 9 for more information on these values.¶

Table 1 summarizes the major types defined by CBOR, ignoring the next section for now. The number N in this table stands for the argument, mt for the major type.¶

3.2. Indefinite Lengths for Some Major Types

Four CBOR items (arrays, maps, byte strings, and text strings) can be encoded with an indefinite length using additional information value 31. This is useful if the encoding of the item needs to begin before the number of items inside the array or map, or the total length of the string, is known. (The ability to start sending a data item before all of it is known is often referred to as "streaming" within that data item.)¶

Indefinite-length arrays and maps are dealt with differently than indefinite-length strings (byte strings and text strings).¶

83        -- Array of length 3
   01     -- 1
   82     -- Array of length 2
      02  -- 2
      03  -- 3
   82     -- Array of length 2
      04  -- 4
      05  -- 5

0x9f018202039f0405ffff
9F        -- Start indefinite-length array
   01     -- 1
   82     -- Array of length 2
      02  -- 2
      03  -- 3
   9F     -- Start indefinite-length array
      04  -- 4
      05  -- 5
      FF  -- "break" (inner array)
   FF     -- "break" (outer array)

0x9f01820203820405ff
9F        -- Start indefinite-length array
   01     -- 1
   82     -- Array of length 2
      02  -- 2
      03  -- 3
   82     -- Array of length 2
      04  -- 4
      05  -- 5
   FF     -- "break"

0x83018202039f0405ff
83        -- Array of length 3
   01     -- 1
   82     -- Array of length 2
      02  -- 2
      03  -- 3
   9F     -- Start indefinite-length array
      04  -- 4
      05  -- 5
      FF  -- "break"

0x83019f0203ff820405
83        -- Array of length 3
   01     -- 1
   9F     -- Start indefinite-length array
      02  -- 2
      03  -- 3
      FF  -- "break"
   82     -- Array of length 2
      04  -- 4
      05  -- 5

0xbf6346756ef563416d7421ff
BF           -- Start indefinite-length map
   63        -- First key, UTF-8 string length 3
      46756e --   "Fun"
   F5        -- First value, true
   63        -- Second key, UTF-8 string length 3
      416d74 --   "Amt"
   21        -- Second value, -2
   FF        -- "break"

5F              -- Start indefinite-length byte string
   44           -- Byte string of length 4
      aabbccdd  -- Bytes content
   43           -- Byte string of length 3
      eeff99    -- Bytes content
   FF           -- "break"

3.3. Floating-Point Numbers and Values with No Content

Major type 7 is for two types of data: floating-point numbers and "simple values" that do not need any content. Each value of the 5-bit additional information in the initial byte has its own separate meaning, as defined in Table 3. Like the major types for integers, items of this major type do not carry content data; all the information is in the initial bytes (the head).¶

As with all other major types, the 5-bit value 24 signifies a single-byte extension: it is followed by an additional byte to represent the simple value. (To minimize confusion, only the values 32 to 255 are used.) This maintains the structure of the initial bytes: as for the other major types, the length of these always depends on the additional information in the first byte. Table 4 lists the numeric values assigned and available for simple values.¶

An encoder MUST NOT issue two-byte sequences that start with 0xf8 (major type 7, additional information 24) and continue with a byte less than 0x20 (32 decimal). Such sequences are not well-formed. (This implies that an encoder cannot encode false, true, null, or undefined in two-byte sequences, and that only the one-byte variants of these are well-formed; more generally speaking, each simple value only has a single representation variant).¶

The 5-bit values of 25, 26, and 27 are for 16-bit, 32-bit, and 64-bit IEEE 754 binary floating-point values [IEEE754]. These floating-point values are encoded in the additional bytes of the appropriate size. (See Appendix D for some information about 16-bit floating-point numbers.)¶

3.4. Tagging of Items

In CBOR, a data item can be enclosed by a tag to give it some additional semantics, as uniquely identified by a "tag number". The tag is major type 6, its argument (Section 3) indicates the tag number, and it contains a single enclosed data item, the "tag content". (If a tag requires further structure to its content, this structure is provided by the enclosed data item.) We use the term "tag" for the entire data item consisting of both a tag number and the tag content: the tag content is the data item that is being tagged.¶

For example, assume that a byte string of length 12 is marked with a tag of number 2 to indicate it is a positive "bignum" (Section 3.4.3). The encoded data item would start with a byte 0b110_00010 (major type 6, additional information 2 for the tag number) followed by the encoded tag content: 0b010_01100 (major type 2, additional information of 12 for the length) followed by the 12 bytes of the bignum.¶

The definition of a tag number describes the additional semantics conveyed for tags with this tag number in the extended generic data model. These semantics may include equivalence of some tagged data items with other data items, including some that can already be represented in the basic generic data model. For instance, 0xc24101, a bignum the tag content of which is the byte string with the single byte 0x01, is equivalent to an integer 1, which could also be encoded for instance as 0x01, 0x1801, or 0x190001. The tag definition may include the definition of a preferred serialization (Section 4.1) that is recommended for generic encoders; this may prefer basic generic data model representations over ones that employ a tag.¶

The tag definition usually restricts what kinds of nested data item or items are valid for such tags. Tag definitions may restrict their content to a very specific syntactic structure, as the tags defined in this document do, or they may aim at a more semantically defined definition of their content, as for instance tags 40 and 1040 do [RFC8746]: These accept a number of different ways of representing arrays.¶

As a matter of convention, many tags do not accept null or undefined values as tag content; instead, the expectation is that a null or undefined value can be used in place of the entire tag; Section 3.4.2 provides some further considerations for one specific tag about the handling of this convention in application protocols and in mapping to platform types.¶

Decoders do not need to understand tags of every tag number, and tags may be of little value in applications where the implementation creating a particular CBOR data item and the implementation decoding that stream know the semantic meaning of each item in the data flow. Their primary purpose in this specification is to define common data types such as dates. A secondary purpose is to provide conversion hints when it is foreseen that the CBOR data item needs to be translated into a different format, requiring hints about the content of items. Understanding the semantics of tags is optional for a decoder; it can simply present both the tag number and the tag content to the application, without interpreting the additional semantics of the tag.¶

A tag applies semantics to the data item it encloses. Tags can nest: If tag A encloses tag B, which encloses data item C, tag A applies to the result of applying tag B on data item C.¶

IANA maintains a registry of tag numbers as described in Section 9.2. Table 5 provides a list of tag numbers that were defined in [RFC7049], with definitions in the rest of this section. (Tag number 35 was also defined in [RFC7049]; a discussion of this tag number follows in Section 3.4.5.3.) Note that many other tag numbers have been defined since the publication of [RFC7049]; see the registry described at Section 9.2 for the complete list.¶

Conceptually, tags are interpreted in the generic data model, not at (de-)serialization time. A small number of tags (at this time, tag number 25 and tag number 29 [IANA.cbor-tags]) have been registered with semantics that may require processing at (de-)serialization time: The decoder needs to be aware and the encoder needs to be in control of the exact sequence in which data items are encoded into the CBOR data item. This means these tags cannot be implemented on top of an arbitrary generic CBOR encoder/decoder (which might not reflect the serialization order for entries in a map at the data model level and vice versa); their implementation therefore typically needs to be integrated into the generic encoder/decoder. The definition of new tags with this property is NOT RECOMMENDED.¶

IANA allocated tag numbers 65535, 4294967295, and 18446744073709551615 (binary all-ones in 16-bit, 32-bit, and 64-bit). These can be used as a convenience for implementers that want a single integer data structure to indicate either that a specific tag is present, or the absence of a tag. That allocation is described in Section 10 of [I-D.bormann-cbor-notable-tags]. These tags are not intended to occur in actual CBOR data items; implementations MAY flag such an occurrence as an error.¶

Protocols using tag numbers 0 and 1 extend the generic data model (Section 2) with data items representing points in time; tag numbers 2 and 3, with arbitrarily sized integers; and tag numbers 4 and 5, with floating-point values of arbitrary size and precision.¶

C2                        -- Tag 2
   49                     -- Byte string of length 9
      010000000000000000  -- Bytes content

C4             -- Tag 4
   82          -- Array of length 2
      21       -- -2
      19 6ab3  -- 27315

C5             -- Tag 5
   82          -- Array of length 2
      20       -- -1
      03       -- 3

4.1. Preferred Serialization

For some values at the data model level, CBOR provides multiple serializations. For many applications, it is desirable that an encoder always chooses a preferred serialization (preferred encoding); however, the present specification does not put the burden of enforcing this preference on either encoder or decoder.¶

Some constrained decoders may be limited in their ability to decode non-preferred serializations: For example, if only integers below 1_000_000_000 (one billion) are expected in an application, the decoder may leave out the code that would be needed to decode 64-bit arguments in integers. An encoder that always uses preferred serialization ("preferred encoder") interoperates with this decoder for the numbers that can occur in this application. More generally speaking, it therefore can be said that a preferred encoder is more universally interoperable (and also less wasteful) than one that, say, always uses 64-bit integers.¶

Similarly, a constrained encoder may be limited in the variety of representation variants it supports in such a way that it does not emit preferred serializations ("variant encoder"): Say, it could be designed to always use the 32-bit variant for an integer that it encodes even if a short representation is available (again, assuming that there is no application need for integers that can only be represented with the 64-bit variant). A decoder that does not rely on only ever receiving preferred serializations ("variation-tolerant decoder") can therefore be said to be more universally interoperable (it might very well optimize for the case of receiving preferred serializations, though). Full implementations of CBOR decoders are by definition variation-tolerant; the distinction is only relevant if a constrained implementation of a CBOR decoder meets a variant encoder.¶

The preferred serialization always uses the shortest form of representing the argument (Section 3); it also uses the shortest floating-point encoding that preserves the value being encoded.¶

The preferred serialization for a floating-point value is the shortest floating-point encoding that preserves its value, e.g., 0xf94580 for the number 5.5, and 0xfa45ad9c00 for the number 5555.5. For NaN values, a shorter encoding is preferred if zero-padding the shorter significand towards the right reconstitutes the original NaN value (for many applications, the single NaN encoding 0xf97e00 will suffice).¶

Definite length encoding is preferred whenever the length is known at the time the serialization of the item starts.¶

4.2. Deterministically Encoded CBOR

Some protocols may want encoders to only emit CBOR in a particular deterministic format; those protocols might also have the decoders check that their input is in that deterministic format. Those protocols are free to define what they mean by a "deterministic format" and what encoders and decoders are expected to do. This section defines a set of restrictions that can serve as the base of such a deterministic format.¶

5.1. CBOR in Streaming Applications

In a streaming application, a data stream may be composed of a sequence of CBOR data items concatenated back-to-back. In such an environment, the decoder immediately begins decoding a new data item if data is found after the end of a previous data item.¶

Not all of the bytes making up a data item may be immediately available to the decoder; some decoders will buffer additional data until a complete data item can be presented to the application. Other decoders can present partial information about a top-level data item to an application, such as the nested data items that could already be decoded, or even parts of a byte string that hasn't completely arrived yet. Such an application also MUST have a matching streaming security mechanism, where the desired protection is available for incremental data presented to the application.¶

Note that some applications and protocols will not want to use indefinite-length encoding. Using indefinite-length encoding allows an encoder to not need to marshal all the data for counting, but it requires a decoder to allocate increasing amounts of memory while waiting for the end of the item. This might be fine for some applications but not others.¶

5.2. Generic Encoders and Decoders

A generic CBOR decoder can decode all well-formed encoded CBOR data items and present the data items to an application. See Appendix C. (The diagnostic notation, Section 8, may be used to present well-formed CBOR values to humans.)¶

Generic CBOR encoders provide an application interface that allows the application to specify any well-formed value to be encoded as a CBOR data item, including simple values and tags unknown to the encoder.¶

Even though CBOR attempts to minimize these cases, not all well-formed CBOR data is valid: for example, the encoded text string 0x62c0ae does not contain valid UTF-8 (because [RFC3629] requires always using the shortest form) and so is not a valid CBOR item. Also, specific tags may make semantic constraints that may be violated, for instance by a bignum tag enclosing another tag, or by an instance of tag number 0 containing a byte string, or containing a text string with contents that do not match [RFC3339]'s date-time production. There is no requirement that generic encoders and decoders make unnatural choices for their application interface to enable the processing of invalid data. Generic encoders and decoders are expected to forward simple values and tags even if their specific codepoints are not registered at the time the encoder/decoder is written (Section 5.4).¶

5.3. Validity of Items

A well-formed but invalid CBOR data item (Section 1.2) presents a problem with interpreting the data encoded in it in the CBOR data model. A CBOR-based protocol could be specified in several layers, in which the lower layers don't process the semantics of some of the CBOR data they forward. These layers can't notice any validity errors in data they don't process and MUST forward that data as-is. The first layer that does process the semantics of an invalid CBOR item MUST take one of two choices:¶

1. Replace the problematic item with an error marker and continue with the next item, or¶
2. Issue an error and stop processing altogether.¶

A CBOR-based protocol MUST specify which of these options its decoders take, for each kind of invalid item they might encounter.¶

Such problems might occur at the basic validity level of CBOR or in the context of tags (tag validity).¶

5.4. Validity and Evolution

A decoder with validity checking will expend the effort to reliably detect data items with validity errors. For example, such a decoder needs to have an API that reports an error (and does not return data) for a CBOR data item that contains any of the validity errors listed in the previous subsection.¶

The set of tags defined in the tag registry (Section 9.2), as well as the set of simple values defined in the simple values registry (Section 9.1), can grow at any time beyond the set understood by a generic decoder. A validity-checking decoder can do one of two things when it encounters such a case that it does not recognize:¶

• It can report an error (and not return data). Note that treating this case as an error can cause ossification, and is thus not encouraged. This error is not a validity error per se. This kind of error is more likely to be raised by a decoder that would be performing validity checking if this were a known case.¶
• It can emit the unknown item (type, value, and, for tags, the decoded tagged data item) to the application calling the decoder, with an indication that the decoder did not recognize that tag number or simple value.¶

The latter approach, which is also appropriate for decoders that do not support validity checking, provides forward compatibility with newly registered tags and simple values without the requirement to update the encoder at the same time as the calling application. (For this, the API for the decoder needs to have a way to mark unknown items so that the calling application can handle them in a manner appropriate for the program.)¶

Since some of the processing needed for validity checking may have an appreciable cost (in particular with duplicate detection for maps), support of validity checking is not a requirement placed on all CBOR decoders.¶

Some encoders will rely on their applications to provide input data in such a way that valid CBOR results from the encoder. A generic encoder may also want to provide a validity-checking mode where it reliably limits its output to valid CBOR, independent of whether or not its application is indeed providing API-conformant data.¶

5.5. Numbers

CBOR-based protocols should take into account that different language environments pose different restrictions on the range and precision of numbers that are representable. For example, the basic JavaScript number system treats all numbers as floating-point values, which may result in silent loss of precision in decoding integers with more than 53 significant bits. Another example is that, since CBOR keeps the sign bit for its integer representation in the major type, it has one bit more for signed numbers of a certain length (e.g., -2**64..2**64-1 for 1+8-byte integers) than the typical platform signed integer representation of the same length (-2**63..2**63-1 for 8-byte int64_t). A protocol that uses numbers should define its expectations on the handling of non-trivial numbers in decoders and receiving applications.¶

A CBOR-based protocol that includes floating-point numbers can restrict which of the three formats (half-precision, single-precision, and double-precision) are to be supported. For an integer-only application, a protocol may want to completely exclude the use of floating-point values.¶

A CBOR-based protocol designed for compactness may want to exclude specific integer encodings that are longer than necessary for the application, such as to save the need to implement 64-bit integers. There is an expectation that encoders will use the most compact integer representation that can represent a given value. However, a compact application that does not require deterministic encoding should accept values that use a longer-than-needed encoding (such as encoding "0" as 0b000_11001 followed by two bytes of 0x00) as long as the application can decode an integer of the given size. Similar considerations apply to floating-point values; decoding both preferred serializations and longer-than-needed ones is recommended.¶

CBOR-based protocols for constrained applications that provide a choice between representing a specific number as an integer and as a decimal fraction or bigfloat (such as when the exponent is small and non-negative), might express a quality-of-implementation expectation that the integer representation is used directly.¶

5.6. Specifying Keys for Maps

The encoding and decoding applications need to agree on what types of keys are going to be used in maps. In applications that need to interwork with JSON-based applications, conversion is simplified by limiting keys to text strings only; otherwise, there has to be a specified mapping from the other CBOR types to text strings, and this often leads to implementation errors. In applications where keys are numeric in nature and numeric ordering of keys is important to the application, directly using the numbers for the keys is useful.¶

If multiple types of keys are to be used, consideration should be given to how these types would be represented in the specific programming environments that are to be used. For example, in JavaScript Maps [ECMA262], a key of integer 1 cannot be distinguished from a key of floating-point 1.0. This means that, if integer keys are used, the protocol needs to avoid use of floating-point keys the values of which happen to be integer numbers in the same map.¶

Decoders that deliver data items nested within a CBOR data item immediately on decoding them ("streaming decoders") often do not keep the state that is necessary to ascertain uniqueness of a key in a map. Similarly, an encoder that can start encoding data items before the enclosing data item is completely available ("streaming encoder") may want to reduce its overhead significantly by relying on its data source to maintain uniqueness.¶

A CBOR-based protocol MUST define what to do when a receiving application does see multiple identical keys in a map. The resulting rule in the protocol MUST respect the CBOR data model: it cannot prescribe a specific handling of the entries with the identical keys, except that it might have a rule that having identical keys in a map indicates a malformed map and that the decoder has to stop with an error. When processing maps that exhibit entries with duplicate keys, a generic decoder might do one of the following:¶

• Not accept maps with duplicate keys (that is, enforce validity for maps, see also Section 5.4). These generic decoders are universally useful. An application may still need to do perform its own duplicate checking based on application rules (for instance if the application equates integers and floating-point values in map key positions for specific maps).¶
• Pass all map entries to the application, including ones with duplicate keys. This requires the application to handle (check against) duplicate keys, even if the application rules are identical to the generic data model rules.¶
• Lose some entries with duplicate keys, e.g. by only delivering the final (or first) entry out of the entries with the same key. With such a generic decoder, applications may get different results for a specific key on different runs and with different generic decoders as which value is returned is based on generic decoder implementation and the actual order of keys in the map. In particular, applications cannot validate key uniqueness on their own as they do not necessarily see all entries; they may not be able to use such a generic decoder if they do need to validate key uniqueness. These generic decoders can only be used in situations where the data source and transfer can be relied upon to always provide valid maps; this is not possible if the data source and transfer can be attacked.¶

Generic decoders need to document which of these three approaches they implement.¶

The CBOR data model for maps does not allow ascribing semantics to the order of the key/value pairs in the map representation. Thus, a CBOR-based protocol MUST NOT specify that changing the key/value pair order in a map would change the semantics, except to specify that some orders are disallowed, for example where they would not meet the requirements of a deterministic encoding (Section 4.2). (Any secondary effects of map ordering such as on timing, cache usage, and other potential side channels are not considered part of the semantics but may be enough reason on their own for a protocol to require a deterministic encoding format.)¶

Applications for constrained devices that have maps where a small number of frequently used keys can be identified should consider using small integers as keys; for instance, a set of 24 or fewer frequent keys can be encoded in a single byte as unsigned integers, up to 48 if negative integers are also used. Less frequently occurring keys can then use integers with longer encodings.¶

5.7. Undefined Values

In some CBOR-based protocols, the simple value (Section 3.3) of Undefined might be used by an encoder as a substitute for a data item with an encoding problem, in order to allow the rest of the enclosing data items to be encoded without harm.¶

6.1. Converting from CBOR to JSON

Most of the types in CBOR have direct analogs in JSON. However, some do not, and someone implementing a CBOR-to-JSON converter has to consider what to do in those cases. The following non-normative advice deals with these by converting them to a single substitute value, such as a JSON null.¶

• An integer (major type 0 or 1) becomes a JSON number.¶
• A byte string (major type 2) that is not embedded in a tag that specifies a proposed encoding is encoded in base64url without padding and becomes a JSON string.¶
• A UTF-8 string (major type 3) becomes a JSON string. Note that JSON requires escaping certain characters ([RFC8259], Section 7): quotation mark (U+0022), reverse solidus (U+005C), and the "C0 control characters" (U+0000 through U+001F). All other characters are copied unchanged into the JSON UTF-8 string.¶
• An array (major type 4) becomes a JSON array.¶
• A map (major type 5) becomes a JSON object. This is possible directly only if all keys are UTF-8 strings. A converter might also convert other keys into UTF-8 strings (such as by converting integers into strings containing their decimal representation); however, doing so introduces a danger of key collision. Note also that, if tags on UTF-8 strings are ignored as proposed below, this will cause a key collision if the tags are different but the strings are the same.¶
• False (major type 7, additional information 20) becomes a JSON false.¶
• True (major type 7, additional information 21) becomes a JSON true.¶
• Null (major type 7, additional information 22) becomes a JSON null.¶
• A floating-point value (major type 7, additional information 25 through 27) becomes a JSON number if it is finite (that is, it can be represented in a JSON number); if the value is non-finite (NaN, or positive or negative Infinity), it is represented by the substitute value.¶
• Any other simple value (major type 7, any additional information value not yet discussed) is represented by the substitute value.¶
• A bignum (major type 6, tag number 2 or 3) is represented by encoding its byte string in base64url without padding and becomes a JSON string. For tag number 3 (negative bignum), a "~" (ASCII tilde) is inserted before the base-encoded value. (The conversion to a binary blob instead of a number is to prevent a likely numeric overflow for the JSON decoder.)¶
• A byte string with an encoding hint (major type 6, tag number 21 through 23) is encoded as described by the hint and becomes a JSON string.¶
• For all other tags (major type 6, any other tag number), the tag content is represented as a JSON value; the tag number is ignored.¶
• Indefinite-length items are made definite before conversion.¶

A CBOR-to-JSON converter may want to keep to the JSON profile I-JSON [RFC7493], to maximize interoperability and increase confidence that the JSON output can be processed with predictable results. For example, this has implications on the range of integers that can be represented reliably, as well as on the top-level items that may be supported by older JSON implementations.¶

6.2. Converting from JSON to CBOR

All JSON values, once decoded, directly map into one or more CBOR values. As with any kind of CBOR generation, decisions have to be made with respect to number representation. In a suggested conversion:¶

• JSON numbers without fractional parts (integer numbers) are represented as integers (major types 0 and 1, possibly major type 6 tag number 2 and 3), choosing the shortest form; integers longer than an implementation-defined threshold may instead be represented as floating-point values. The default range that is represented as integer is -2**53+1..2**53-1 (fully exploiting the range for exact integers in the binary64 representation often used for decoding JSON [RFC7493]). A CBOR-based protocol, or a generic converter implementation, may choose -2**32..2**32-1 or -2**64..2**64-1 (fully using the integer ranges available in CBOR with uint32_t or uint64_t, respectively) or even -2**31..2**31-1 or -2**63..2**63-1 (using popular ranges for two's complement signed integers). (If the JSON was generated from a JavaScript implementation, its precision is already limited to 53 bits maximum.)¶
• Numbers with fractional parts are represented as floating-point values, performing the decimal-to-binary conversion based on the precision provided by IEEE 754 binary64. The mathematical value of the JSON number is converted to binary64 using the roundTiesToEven procedure in Section 4.3.1 of [IEEE754]. Then, when encoding in CBOR, the preferred serialization uses the shortest floating-point representation exactly representing this conversion result; for instance, 1.5 is represented in a 16-bit floating-point value (not all implementations will be capable of efficiently finding the minimum form, though). Instead of using the default binary64 precision, there may be an implementation-defined limit to the precision of the conversion that will affect the precision of the represented values. Decimal representation should only be used on the CBOR side if that is specified in a protocol.¶

CBOR has been designed to generally provide a more compact encoding than JSON. One implementation strategy that might come to mind is to perform a JSON-to-CBOR encoding in place in a single buffer. This strategy would need to carefully consider a number of pathological cases, such as that some strings represented with no or very few escapes and longer (or much longer) than 255 bytes may expand when encoded as UTF-8 strings in CBOR. Similarly, a few of the binary floating-point representations might cause expansion from some short decimal representations (1.1, 1e9) in JSON. This may be hard to get right, and any ensuing vulnerabilities may be exploited by an attacker.¶

7.1. Extension Points

In a protocol design, opportunities for evolution are often included in the form of extension points. For example, there may be a codepoint space that is not fully allocated from the outset, and the protocol is designed to tolerate and embrace implementations that start using more codepoints than initially allocated.¶

Sizing the codepoint space may be difficult because the range required may be hard to predict. Protocol designs should attempt to make the codepoint space large enough so that it can slowly be filled over the intended lifetime of the protocol.¶

CBOR has three major extension points:¶

• the "simple" space (values in major type 7). Of the 24 efficient (and 224 slightly less efficient) values, only a small number have been allocated. Implementations receiving an unknown simple data item may easily be able to process it as such, given that the structure of the value is indeed simple. The IANA registry in Section 9.1 is the appropriate way to address the extensibility of this codepoint space.¶
• the "tag" space (values in major type 6). The total codepoint space is abundant; only a tiny part of it has been allocated. However, not all of these codepoints are equally efficient: the first 24 only consume a single ("1+0") byte, and half of them have already been allocated. The next 232 values only consume two ("1+1") bytes, with nearly a quarter already allocated. These subspaces need some curation to last for a few more decades. Implementations receiving an unknown tag number can choose to process just the enclosed tag content or, preferably, to process the tag as an unknown tag number wrapping the tag content. The IANA registry in Section 9.2 is the appropriate way to address the extensibility of this codepoint space.¶
• the "additional information" space. An implementation receiving an unknown additional information value has no way to continue decoding, so allocating codepoints in this space is a major step beyond just exercising an extension point. There are also very few codepoints left. See also Section 7.2.¶

7.2. Curating the Additional Information Space

The human mind is sometimes drawn to filling in little perceived gaps to make something neat. We expect the remaining gaps in the codepoint space for the additional information values to be an attractor for new ideas, just because they are there.¶

The present specification does not manage the additional information codepoint space by an IANA registry. Instead, allocations out of this space can only be done by updating this specification.¶

For an additional information value of n >= 24, the size of the additional data typically is 2**(n-24) bytes. Therefore, additional information values 28 and 29 should be viewed as candidates for 128-bit and 256-bit quantities, in case a need arises to add them to the protocol. Additional information value 30 is then the only additional information value available for general allocation, and there should be a very good reason for allocating it before assigning it through an update of the present specification.¶

8.1. 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 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.¶

A single underscore can be written after the opening brace of a map or the opening bracket of an array to indicate that the data item was represented in indefinite-length format. For example, [_ 1, 2] contains an indicator that an indefinite-length representation was used to represent the data item [1, 2].¶

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 24+n. For example, 1.5_1 is a half-precision floating-point number, while 1.5_3 is encoded as double precision. This encoding indicator is not shown in Appendix A. (Note that the encoding indicator "_" is thus an abbreviation of the full form "_7", which is not used.)¶

The detailed chunk structure of byte and text strings of indefinite length can be notated in the form (_ h'0123', h'4567') and (_ "foo", "bar"). However, for an indefinite length string with no chunks inside, (_ ) would be ambiguous whether a byte string (0x5fff) or a text string (0x7fff) is meant and is therefore not used. The basic forms ''_ and ""_ can be used instead and are reserved for the case with no chunks only -- not as short forms for the (permitted, but not really useful) encodings with only empty chunks, which to preserve the chunk structure need to be notated as (_ ''), (_ ""), etc.¶

9.1. Simple Values Registry

IANA has created the "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Simple Values" registry at [IANA.cbor-simple-values]. The initial values are shown in Table 4.¶

New entries in the range 0 to 19 are assigned by Standards Action. It is suggested that these Standards Actions allocate values starting with the number 16 in order to reserve the lower numbers for contiguous blocks (if any).¶

New entries in the range 32 to 255 are assigned by Specification Required.¶

9.2. Tags Registry

IANA has created the "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags" registry at [IANA.cbor-tags]. The tags that were defined in [RFC7049] are described in detail in Section 3.4, and other tags have already been defined since then.¶

New entries in the range 0 to 23 ("1+0") are assigned by Standards Action. New entries in the ranges 24 to 255 ("1+1") and 256 to 32767 (lower half of "1+2") are assigned by Specification Required. New entries in the range 32768 to 18446744073709551615 (upper half of "1+2", "1+4", and "1+8") are assigned by First Come First Served. The template for registration requests is:¶

• Data item¶
• Semantics (short form)¶

In addition, First Come First Served requests should include:¶

• Point of contact¶
• Description of semantics (URL) -- This description is optional; the URL can point to something like an Internet-Draft or a web page.¶

Applicants exercising the First Come First Served range and making a suggestion for a tag number that is not representable in 32 bits (i.e., larger than 4294967295) should be aware that this could reduce interoperability with implementations that do not support 64-bit numbers.¶

9.3. Media Type ("MIME Type")

The Internet media type [RFC6838] for a single encoded CBOR data item is application/cbor, as defined in [IANA.media-types]:¶

Type name: application¶

Subtype name: cbor¶

Required parameters: n/a¶

Optional parameters: n/a¶

Encoding considerations:

Binary¶

Security considerations:

See Section 10 of this document¶

Interoperability considerations: n/a¶

Published specification: This document¶

Applications that use this media type:

Many¶

Additional information:

• Magic number(s): n/a¶
• File extension(s): .cbor¶
• Macintosh file type code(s): n/a¶

Person & email address to contact for further information:

IETF CBOR Working Group cbor@ietf.org or IETF Applications and Real-Time Area art@ietf.org¶

Intended usage: COMMON¶

Restrictions on usage: none¶

Author:

IETF CBOR Working Group cbor@ietf.org¶

Change controller:

The IESG iesg@ietf.org¶

9.4. CoAP Content-Format

The CoAP Content-Format for CBOR is registered in [IANA.core-parameters]:¶

Media Type: application/cbor¶

Encoding: -¶

Id: 60¶

Reference: [RFCthis]¶

9.5. The +cbor Structured Syntax Suffix Registration

The Structured Syntax Suffix [RFC6838] for media types based on a single encoded CBOR data item is +cbor, as defined in [IANA.media-type-structured-suffix]:¶

Name: Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)¶

+suffix: +cbor¶

References: [RFCthis]¶

Encoding Considerations: CBOR is a binary format.¶

Interoperability Considerations: n/a¶

Fragment Identifier Considerations:

The syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers specified for +cbor SHOULD be as specified for "application/cbor". (At publication of this document, there is no fragment identification syntax defined for "application/cbor".)¶

The syntax and semantics for fragment identifiers for a specific "xxx/yyy+cbor" SHOULD be processed as follows:¶

• For cases defined in +cbor, where the fragment identifier resolves per the +cbor rules, then process as specified in +cbor.¶
• For cases defined in +cbor, where the fragment identifier does not resolve per the +cbor rules, then process as specified in "xxx/yyy+cbor".¶
• For cases not defined in +cbor, then process as specified in "xxx/yyy+cbor".¶

Security Considerations:

See Section 10 of this document¶

Contact:

IETF CBOR Working Group cbor@ietf.org or IETF Applications and Real-Time Area art@ietf.org¶

Author/Change Controller:

The IESG iesg@ietf.org¶

E.1. ASN.1 DER, BER, and PER

[ASN.1] has many serializations. In the IETF, DER and BER are the most common. The serialized output is not particularly compact for many items, and the code needed to decode numeric items can be complex on a constrained device.¶

Few (if any) IETF protocols have adopted one of the several variants of Packed Encoding Rules (PER). There could be many reasons for this, but one that is commonly stated is that PER makes use of the schema even for parsing the surface structure of the data item, requiring significant tool support. There are different versions of the ASN.1 schema language in use, which has also hampered adoption.¶

E.2. MessagePack

[MessagePack] is a concise, widely implemented counted binary serialization format, similar in many properties to CBOR, although somewhat less regular. While the data model can be used to represent JSON data, MessagePack has also been used in many remote procedure call (RPC) applications and for long-term storage of data.¶

MessagePack has been essentially stable since it was first published around 2011; it has not yet had a transition. The evolution of MessagePack is impeded by an imperative to maintain complete backwards compatibility with existing stored data, while only few bytecodes are still available for extension. Repeated requests over the years from the MessagePack user community to separate out binary and text strings in the encoding recently have led to an extension proposal that would leave MessagePack's "raw" data ambiguous between its usages for binary and text data. The extension mechanism for MessagePack remains unclear.¶

E.3. BSON

[BSON] is a data format that was developed for the storage of JSON-like maps (JSON objects) in the MongoDB database. Its major distinguishing feature is the capability for in-place update, which prevents a compact representation. BSON uses a counted representation except for map keys, which are null-byte terminated. While BSON can be used for the representation of JSON-like objects on the wire, its specification is dominated by the requirements of the database application and has become somewhat baroque. The status of how BSON extensions will be implemented remains unclear.¶

E.4. MSDTP: RFC 713

Message Services Data Transmission (MSDTP) is a very early example of a compact message format; it is described in [RFC0713], written in 1976. It is included here for its historical value, not because it was ever widely used.¶

E.5. Conciseness on the Wire

While CBOR's design objective of code compactness for encoders and decoders is a higher priority than its objective of conciseness on the wire, many people focus on the wire size. Table 8 shows some encoding examples for the simple nested array [1, [2, 3]]; where some form of indefinite-length encoding is supported by the encoding, [_ 1, [2, 3]] (indefinite length on the outer array) is also shown.¶

F.1. Examples for CBOR data items that are not well-formed

This subsection shows a few examples for CBOR data items that are not well-formed. Each example is a sequence of bytes each shown in hexadecimal; multiple examples in a list are separated by commas.¶

Examples for well-formedness error kind 1 (too much data) can easily be formed by adding data to a well-formed encoded CBOR data item.¶

Similarly, examples for well-formedness error kind 2 (too little data) can be formed by truncating a well-formed encoded CBOR data item. In test suites, it may be beneficial to specifically test with incomplete data items that would require large amounts of addition to be completed (for instance by starting the encoding of a string of a very large size).¶

A premature end of the input can occur in a head or within the enclosed data, which may be bare strings or enclosed data items that are either counted or should have been ended by a "break" stop code.¶

• End of input in a head: 18, 19, 1a, 1b, 19 01, 1a 01 02, 1b 01 02 03 04 05 06 07, 38, 58, 78, 98, 9a 01 ff 00, b8, d8, f8, f9 00, fa 00 00, fb 00 00 00¶
• Definite length strings with short data: 41, 61, 5a ff ff ff ff 00, 5b ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff 01 02 03, 7a ff ff ff ff 00, 7b 7f ff ff ff ff ff ff ff 01 02 03¶
• Definite length maps and arrays not closed with enough items: 81, 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81, 82 00, a1, a2 01 02, a1 00, a2 00 00 00¶
• Tag number not followed by tag content: c0¶
• Indefinite length strings not closed by a "break" stop code: 5f 41 00, 7f 61 00¶
• Indefinite length maps and arrays not closed by a "break" stop code: 9f, 9f 01 02, bf, bf 01 02 01 02, 81 9f, 9f 80 00, 9f 9f 9f 9f 9f ff ff ff ff, 9f 81 9f 81 9f 9f ff ff ff¶

A few examples for the five subkinds of well-formedness error kind 3 (syntax error) are shown below.¶

Subkind 1:¶

• Reserved additional information values: 1c, 1d, 1e, 3c, 3d, 3e, 5c, 5d, 5e, 7c, 7d, 7e, 9c, 9d, 9e, bc, bd, be, dc, dd, de, fc, fd, fe,¶

Subkind 2:¶

• Reserved two-byte encodings of simple values: f8 00, f8 01, f8 18, f8 1f¶

Subkind 3:¶

• Indefinite length string chunks not of the correct type: 5f 00 ff, 5f 21 ff, 5f 61 00 ff, 5f 80 ff, 5f a0 ff, 5f c0 00 ff, 5f e0 ff, 7f 41 00 ff¶
• Indefinite length string chunks not definite length: 5f 5f 41 00 ff ff, 7f 7f 61 00 ff ff¶

Subkind 4:¶

• Break occurring on its own outside of an indefinite length item: ff¶
• Break occurring in a definite length array or map or a tag: 81 ff, 82 00 ff, a1 ff, a1 ff 00, a1 00 ff, a2 00 00 ff, 9f 81 ff, 9f 82 9f 81 9f 9f ff ff ff ff¶
• Break in indefinite length map would lead to odd number of items (break in a value position): bf 00 ff, bf 00 00 00 ff¶

Subkind 5:¶

• Major type 0, 1, 6 with additional information 31: 1f, 3f, df¶

G.1. Errata processing, clerical changes

The two verified errata on RFC 7049, EID 3764 and EID 3770, concerned two encoding examples in the text that have been corrected (Section 3.4.3: "29" -> "49", Section 5.5: "0b000_11101" -> "0b000_11001"). Also, RFC 7049 contained an example using the numeric value 24 for a simple value (EID 5917), which is not well-formed; this example has been removed. Errata report 5763 pointed to an accident in the wording of the definition of tags; this was resolved during a re-write of Section 3.4. Errata report 5434 pointed out that the UBJSON example in Appendix E no longer complied with the version of UBJSON current at the time of submitting the report. It turned out that the UBJSON specification had completely changed since 2013; this example therefore also was removed. Further errata reports (4409, 4963, 4964) complained that the map key sorting rules for canonical encoding were onerous; these led to a reconsideration of the canonical encoding suggestions and replacement by the deterministic encoding suggestions (described below). An editorial suggestion in errata report 4294 was also implemented (improved symmetry by adding "Second value" to a comment to the last example in Section 3.2.2).¶

Other more clerical changes include:¶

• use of new RFCXML functionality [RFC7991];¶
• explain some more of the notation used;¶
• updated references, e.g. for RFC4627 to [RFC8259] in many places, for CNN-TERMS to [RFC7228]; added missing reference to [IEEE754] (importing required definitions) and updated to [ECMA262]; added a reference to [RFC8618] that further illustrates the discussion in Appendix E;¶
• the discussion of diagnostic notation mentions the "Extended Diagnostic Notation" (EDN) defined in [RFC8610] as well as the gap diagnostic notation has in representing NaN payloads; an explanation was added on how to represent indefinite length strings with no chunks;¶
• the addition of this appendix.¶

G.2. Changes in IANA considerations

The IANA considerations were generally updated (clerical changes, e.g., now pointing to the CBOR working group as the author of the specification). References to the respective IANA registries have been added to the informative references.¶

Tags in the space from 256 to 32767 (lower half of "1+2") are no longer assigned by First Come First Served; this range is now Specification Required.¶

G.3. Changes in suggestions and other informational components

In revising the document, beyond processing errata reports, the WG could use nearly seven years of experience with the use of CBOR in a diverse set of applications. This led to a number of editorial changes, including adding tables for illustration, but also to emphasizing some aspects and de-emphasizing others.¶

A significant addition in this revision is Section 2, which discusses the CBOR data model and its small variations involved in the processing of CBOR. Introducing terms for those (basic generic, extended generic, specific) enables more concise language in other places of the document, but also helps in clarifying expectations on implementations and on the extensibility features of the format.¶

RFC 7049, as a format derived from the JSON ecosystem, was influenced by the JSON number system that was in turn inherited from JavaScript at the time. JSON does not provide distinct integers and floating-point values (and the latter are decimal in the format). CBOR provides binary representations of numbers, which do differ between integers and floating-point values. Experience from implementation and use now suggested that the separation between these two number domains should be more clearly drawn in the document; language that suggested an integer could seamlessly stand in for a floating-point value was removed. Also, a suggestion (based on I-JSON [RFC7493]) was added for handling these types when converting JSON to CBOR, and the use of a specific rounding mechanism has been recommended.¶

For a single value in the data model, CBOR often provides multiple encoding options. The revision adds a new section Section 4, which first introduces the term "preferred serialization" (Section 4.1) and defines it for various kinds of data items. On the basis of this terminology, the section goes on to discuss how a CBOR-based protocol can define "deterministic encoding" (Section 4.2), which now avoids the RFC 7049 terms "canonical" and "canonicalization". The suggestion of "Core Deterministic Encoding Requirements" Section 4.2.1 enables generic support for such protocol-defined encoding requirements. The present revision further eases the implementation of deterministic encoding by simplifying the map ordering suggested in RFC 7049 to simple lexicographic ordering of encoded keys. A description of the older suggestion is kept as an alternative, now termed "length-first map key ordering" (Section 4.2.3).¶

The terminology for well-formed and valid data was sharpened and more stringently used, avoiding less well-defined alternative terms such as "syntax error", "decoding error" and "strict mode" outside examples. Also, a third level of requirements beyond CBOR-level validity that an application has on its input data is now explicitly called out. Well-formed (processable at all), valid (checked by a validity-checking generic decoder), and expected input (as checked by the application) are treated as a hierarchy of layers of acceptability.¶

The handling of non-well-formed simple values was clarified in text and pseudocode. Appendix F was added to discuss well-formedness errors and provide examples for them. The pseudocode was updated to be more portable and some portability considerations were added.¶

The discussion of validity has been sharpened in two areas. Map validity (handling of duplicate keys) was clarified and the domain of applicability of certain implementation choices explained. Also, while streamlining the terminology for tags, tag numbers, and tag content, discussion was added on tag validity, and the restrictions were clarified on tag content, in general and specifically for tag 1.¶

An implementation note (and note for future tag definitions) was added to Section 3.4 about defining tags with semantics that depend on serialization order.¶

Tag 35 is no longer defined in this updated document; the registration based on the definition in RFC 7049 remains in place.¶

Terminology was introduced in Section 3 for "argument" and "head", simplifying further discussion.¶

The security considerations were mostly rewritten and significantly expanded; in multiple other places, the document is now more explicit that a decoder cannot simply condone well-formedness errors.¶