YAML Media Types

1.1. Notational Conventions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. These words may also appear in this document in lower case as plain English words, absent their normative meanings.¶

This document uses the Augmented BNF defined in [RFC5234] and updated by [RFC7405].¶

The terms "content", "content negotiation", "resource", and "user agent" in this document are to be interpreted as in [SEMANTICS].¶

2.1. Media Type application/yaml

The following information serves as the registration form for the application/yaml media type.¶

Type name:

application¶

Subtype name:

yaml¶

Required parameters:

None¶

Optional parameters:

None; unrecognized parameters should be ignored¶

Encoding considerations:

binary¶

Security considerations:

see Section 4 of this document¶

Interoperability considerations:

see Section 3 of this document¶

Published specification:

this document¶

Applications that use this media type:

HTTP¶

Fragment identifier considerations:

None¶

Additional information:¶

• Deprecated alias names for this type: application/x-yaml, text/yaml, text/x-yaml¶
• Magic number(s) n/a¶
• File extension(s): yaml, yml¶
• Macintosh file type code(s): n/a¶

Person and email address to contact for further information:

See Authors' Addresses section.¶

Intended usage:

COMMON¶

Restrictions on usage:

None.¶

Author:

See Authors' Addresses section.¶

Change controller:

n/a¶

2.2. The +yaml Structured Syntax Suffix

The suffix +yaml MAY be used with any media type whose representation follows that established for application/yaml. The media type structured syntax suffix registration form follows. See [MEDIATYPE] for definitions of each of the registration form headings.¶

Name:

YAML Ain't Markup LanguageML (YAML)¶

+suffix:

+yaml¶

References:

[YAML]¶

Encoding considerations:

see Section 2.1¶

Fragment identifier considerations:

The syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers specified for +yaml SHOULD be as specified for Section 2.1 The syntax and semantics for fragment identifiers for a specific xxx/yyy+yaml SHOULD be processed as follows:¶

1. For cases defined in +yaml, where the fragment identifier resolves per the +yaml rules, then process as specified in +yaml.¶
2. For cases defined in +yaml, where the fragment identifier does not resolve per the +yaml rules, then process as specified in xxx/yyy+yaml.¶
3. For cases not defined in +yaml, then process as specified in xxx/yyy+yaml.¶

Interoperability considerations:

See Section 2.1¶

Security considerations:

See Section 2.1¶

Contact:

See Authors' Addresses section.¶

Author:

See Authors' Addresses section¶

Change controller:

n/a¶

3.1. YAML is an Evolving Language

YAML is an evolving language and, in time, some features have been added, and others removed.¶

While this document is based on a given YAML version [YAML], media types registration does not imply a specific version. This allows content negotiation of version-independent YAML resources.¶

Implementers concerned about features related to a specific YAML version can specify it in the documents using the %YAML directive (see Section 6.8.1 of [YAML]).¶

3.2. YAML and JSON

When using flow collection styles (see Section 7.4 of [YAML]) a YAML document could look like JSON [JSON], thus similar interoperability considerations apply.¶

When using YAML as a more efficient format to serialize information intented to be consumed as JSON, information can be discarded: this includes comments (see Section 3.2.3.3 of [YAML]) and alias nodes (see Section 7.1 of [YAML]), that do not have a JSON counterpart.¶

# This comment will be lost
# when serializing in JSON.
Title:
  type: string
  maxLength: &text_limit 64

Name:
  type: string
  maxLength: *text_limit  # Replaced by the value 64.

Implementers need to ensure that relevant information will not be lost during the processing. For example, they might consider acceptable that alias nodes are replaced by static values.¶

In some cases an implementer may want to define a list of allowed YAML features, taking into account that the following ones might have interoperability issues with JSON:¶

• non UTF-8 encoding, since YAML supports UTF-16 and UTF-32 in addition to UTF-8;¶
• mapping keys that are not strings;¶
• circular references represented using anchor (see Section 4.2 and Figure 3);¶
• .inf and .nan float values, since JSON does not support them;¶
• non-JSON types, including the ones associated with tags like !!timestamp that were included in the default schema of older YAML versions;¶
• tags in general, and specifically the ones that do not map to JSON types like custom and local tags such as !!python/object and !mytag (see Section 2.4 of [YAML]);¶

non-json-keys:
  2020-01-01: a timestamp
  [0, 1]: a sequence
  ? {k: v}
  : a map
non-json-value: 2020-01-01

4.1. Arbitrary Code Execution

Care should be used when using YAML tags, because their resolution might trigger unexpected code execution.¶

Code execution in deserializers should be disabled by default, and only be enabled explicitly. In those cases, the implementation should ensure - for example, via specific functions - that the code execution results in strictly bounded time/memory limits.¶

Many implementations provide safe deserializers addressing these issues.¶

4.2. Resource Exhaustion

YAML documents are rooted, connected, directed graphs and can contain reference cycles, so they can't be treated as simple trees (see Section 3.2.1 of [YAML]). An implementation that attempts to do that can infinite-loop at some point (e.g. when trying to serialize a YAML document in JSON).¶

x: &x
  y: *x

Even if a document is not cyclic, treating it as a simple tree could lead to improper behaviors (such as the "billion laughs" problem).¶

x1: &a1 ["a", "a"]
x2: &a2 [*a1, *a1]
x3: &a3 [*a2, *a2]

This can be addressed using processors limiting the anchor recursion depth and validating the input before processing it; even in these cases it is important to carefully test the implementation you are going to use. The same considerations apply when serializing a YAML representation graph in a format that does not support reference cycles (see Section 3.2).¶