GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc9193



Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Keränen Request for Comments: 9193 Ericsson Category: Standards Track C. Bormann ISSN: 2070-1721 Universität Bremen TZI

                                                             June 2022
 Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML) Fields for Indicating Data Value
                           Content-Format

Abstract

 The Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML) media types support multiple
 types of values, from numbers to text strings and arbitrary binary
 Data Values.  In order to facilitate processing of binary Data
 Values, this document specifies a pair of new SenML fields for
 indicating the content format of those binary Data Values, i.e.,
 their Internet media type, including parameters as well as any
 content codings applied.

Status of This Memo

 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
 Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9193.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
 Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
 in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction
   1.1.  Evolution
 2.  Terminology
 3.  SenML Content-Format ("ct") Field
 4.  SenML Base Content-Format ("bct") Field
 5.  Examples
 6.  ABNF
 7.  Security Considerations
 8.  IANA Considerations
 9.  References
   9.1.  Normative References
   9.2.  Informative References
 Acknowledgments
 Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

 The Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML) media types [RFC8428] can be
 used to send various kinds of data.  In the example given in
 Figure 1, a temperature value, an indication whether a lock is open,
 and a Data Value (with SenML field "vd") read from a Near Field
 Communication (NFC) reader is sent in a single SenML Pack.  The
 example is given in SenML JSON representation, so the "vd" (Data
 Value) field is encoded as a base64url string (without padding), as
 per Section 5 of [RFC8428].
 [
   {"bn":"urn:dev:ow:10e2073a01080063:","n":"temp","u":"Cel","v":7.1},
   {"n":"open","vb":false},
   {"n":"nfc-reader","vd":"aGkgCg"}
 ]
           Figure 1: SenML Pack with Unidentified Binary Data
 The receiver is expected to know how to interpret the data in the
 "vd" field based on the context, e.g., the name of the data source
 and out-of-band knowledge of the application.  However, this context
 may not always be easily available to entities processing the SenML
 Pack, especially if the Pack is propagated over time and via multiple
 entities.  To facilitate automatic interpretation, it is useful to be
 able to indicate an Internet media type and, optionally, content
 codings right in the SenML Record.
 The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Content-Format
 (Section 12.3 of [RFC7252]) provides this information in the form of
 a single unsigned integer.  For instance, [RFC8949] defines the
 Content-Format number 60 for Content-Type application/cbor.
 Enclosing this Content-Format number in the Record is illustrated in
 Figure 2.  All registered CoAP Content-Format numbers are listed in
 the "CoAP Content-Formats" registry [IANA.core-parameters], as
 specified by Section 12.3 of [RFC7252].  Note that, at the time of
 writing, the structure of this registry only provides for zero or one
 content coding; nothing in the present document needs to change if
 the registry is extended to allow sequences of content codings.
 {"n":"nfc-reader", "vd":"gmNmb28YKg", "ct":"60"}
       Figure 2: SenML Record with Binary Data Identified as CBOR
 In this example SenML Record, the Data Value contains a string "foo"
 and a number 42 encoded in a Concise Binary Object Representation
 (CBOR) [RFC8949] array.  Since the example above uses the JSON format
 of SenML, the Data Value containing the binary CBOR value is base64
 encoded (Section 5 of [RFC4648]).  The Data Value after base64
 decoding is shown with CBOR diagnostic notation in Figure 3.
 82           # array(2)
    63        # text(3)
       666F6F # "foo"
    18 2A     # unsigned(42)
        Figure 3: Example Data Value in CBOR Diagnostic Notation

1.1. Evolution

 As with SenML in general, there is no expectation that the creator of
 a SenML Pack knows (or has negotiated with) each consumer of that
 Pack, which may be very remote in space and particularly in time.
 This means that the SenML creator in general has no way to know
 whether the consumer knows:
  • each specific Media-Type-Name used,
  • each parameter and each parameter value used,
  • each content coding in use, and
  • each Content-Format number in use for a combination of these.
 What SenML, as well as the new fields defined here, guarantees is
 that a recipient implementation _knows_ when it needs to be updated
 to understand these field values and the values controlled by them;
 registries are used to evolve these name spaces in a controlled way.
 SenML Packs can be processed by a consumer while not understanding
 all the information in them, and information can generally be
 preserved in this processing such that it is useful for further
 consumers.

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.
 Media type:  A registered label for representations (byte strings)
    prepared for interchange [RFC1590] [RFC6838], identified by a
    Media-Type-Name.
 Media-Type-Name:  A combination of a type-name and a subtype-name
    registered in [IANA.media-types], as per [RFC6838], conventionally
    identified by the two names separated by a slash.
 Content-Type:  A Media-Type-Name, optionally associated with
    parameters (Section 5 of [RFC2045], separated from the Media-Type-
    Name and from each other by a semicolon).  In HTTP and many other
    protocols, it is used in a Content-Type header field.
 Content coding:  A name registered in the "HTTP Content Coding
    Registry" [IANA.http-parameters], as specified by Sections 16.6.1
    and 18.6 of [RFC9110], indicating an encoding transformation with
    semantics further specified in Section 8.4.1 of [RFC9110].
    Confusingly, in HTTP, content coding values are found in a header
    field called "Content-Encoding"; however, "content coding" is the
    correct term for the process and the registered values.
 Content format:  The combination of a Content-Type and zero or more
    content codings, identified by (1) a numeric identifier defined in
    the "CoAP Content-Formats" registry [IANA.core-parameters], as per
    Section 12.3 of [RFC7252] (referred to as Content-Format number),
    or (2) a Content-Format-String.
 Content-Format-String:  The string representation of the combination
    of a Content-Type and zero or more content codings.
 Content-Format-Spec:  The string representation of a content format;
    either a Content-Format-String or the (decimal) string
    representation of a Content-Format number.
 Readers should also be familiar with the terms and concepts discussed
 in [RFC8428].

3. SenML Content-Format ("ct") Field

 When a SenML Record contains a Data Value field ("vd"), the Record
 MAY also include a Content-Format indication field, using label "ct".
 The value of this field is a Content-Format-Spec, i.e., one of the
 following:
  • a CoAP Content-Format number in decimal form with no leading zeros

(except for the value "0" itself). This value represents an

    unsigned integer in the range of 0-65535, similar to the "ct"
    attribute defined in Section 7.2.1 of [RFC7252] for CoRE Link
    Format [RFC6690].
  • a Content-Format-String containing a Content-Type and zero or more

content codings (see below).

 The syntax of this field is formally defined in Section 6.
 The CoAP Content-Format number provides a simple and efficient way to
 indicate the type of the data.  Since some Internet media types and
 their content coding and parameter alternatives do not have assigned
 CoAP Content-Format numbers, using Content-Type and zero or more
 content codings is also allowed.  Both methods use a string value in
 the "ct" field to keep its data type consistent across uses.  When
 the "ct" field contains only digits, it is interpreted as a CoAP
 Content-Format number.
 To indicate that one or more content codings are used with a Content-
 Type, each of the content coding values is appended to the Content-
 Type value (media type and parameters, if any), separated by an "@"
 sign, in the order of when the content codings were applied (the same
 order as in Section 8.4 of [RFC9110]).  For example (using a content
 coding value of "deflate", as defined in Section 8.4.1.2 of
 [RFC9110]):
 text/plain; charset=utf-8@deflate
 If no "@" sign is present after the media type and parameters, then
 no content coding has been specified, and the "identity" content
 coding is used -- no encoding transformation is employed.

4. SenML Base Content-Format ("bct") Field

 The Base Content-Format field, label "bct", provides a default value
 for the Content-Format field (label "ct") within its range.  The
 range of the base field includes the Record containing it, up to (but
 not including) the next Record containing a "bct" field, if any, or
 up to the end of the Pack otherwise.  The process of resolving
 (Section 4.6 of [RFC8428]) this base field is performed by adding its
 value with the label "ct" to all Records in this range that carry a
 "vd" field but do not already contain a Content-Format ("ct") field.
 Figure 4 shows a variation of Figure 2 with multiple records, with
 the "nfc-reader" records resolving to the base field value "60" and
 the "iris-photo" record overriding this with the "image/png" media
 type (actual data left out for brevity).
 [
   {"n":"nfc-reader", "vd":"gmNmb28YKg",
    "bct":"60", "bt":1627430700},
   {"n":"nfc-reader", "vd":"gmNiYXIYKw", "t":10},
   {"n":"iris-photo", "vd":".....", "ct":"image/png", "t":10},
   {"n":"nfc-reader", "vd":"gmNiYXoYLA", "t":20}
 ]
                Figure 4: SenML Pack with the bct Field

5. Examples

 The following examples are valid values for the "ct" and "bct" fields
 (explanation/comments in parentheses):
  • "60" (CoAP Content-Format number for "application/cbor")
  • "0" (CoAP Content-Format number for "text/plain" with parameter

"charset=utf-8")

  • "application/json" (JSON Content-Type – equivalent to "50" CoAP

Content-Format number)

  • "application/json@deflate" (JSON Content-Type with "deflate" as

content coding – equivalent to "11050" CoAP Content-Format

    number)
  • "application/json@deflate@aes128gcm" (JSON Content-Type with

"deflate" followed by "aes128gcm" as content codings)

  • "text/csv" (Comma-Separated Values (CSV) [RFC4180] Content-Type)
  • "text/csv;header=present@gzip" (CSV with header row, using "gzip"

as content coding)

6. ABNF

 This specification provides a formal definition of the syntax of
 Content-Format-Spec strings using ABNF notation [RFC5234], which
 contains three new rules and a number of rules collected and adapted
 from various RFCs [RFC9110] [RFC6838] [RFC5234] [RFC8866].
 ; New in this document
 Content-Format-Spec = Content-Format-Number / Content-Format-String
 Content-Format-Number = "0" / (POS-DIGIT *DIGIT)
 Content-Format-String   = Content-Type *("@" Content-Coding)
 ; Cleaned up from RFC 9110,
 ; leaving only SP as blank space,
 ; removing legacy 8-bit characters, and
 ; leaving the parameter as mandatory with each semicolon:
 Content-Type   = Media-Type-Name *( *SP ";" *SP parameter )
 parameter      = token "=" ( token / quoted-string )
 token          = 1*tchar
 tchar          = "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&" / "'" / "*"
                / "+" / "-" / "." / "^" / "_" / "`" / "|" / "~"
                / DIGIT / ALPHA
 quoted-string  = %x22 *( qdtext / quoted-pair ) %x22
 qdtext         = SP / %x21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E
 quoted-pair    = "\" ( SP / VCHAR )
 ; Adapted from Section 8.4.1 of RFC 9110
 Content-Coding   = token
 ; Adapted from various specs
 Media-Type-Name = type-name "/" subtype-name
 ; From RFC 6838
 type-name = restricted-name
 subtype-name = restricted-name
 restricted-name = restricted-name-first *126restricted-name-chars
 restricted-name-first  = ALPHA / DIGIT
 restricted-name-chars  = ALPHA / DIGIT / "!" / "#" /
                          "$" / "&" / "-" / "^" / "_"
 restricted-name-chars =/ "." ; Characters before first dot always
                              ; specify a facet name
 restricted-name-chars =/ "+" ; Characters after last plus always
                              ; specify a structured syntax suffix
 ; Boilerplate from RFC 5234 and RFC 8866
 DIGIT     =  %x30-39           ; 0 - 9
 POS-DIGIT =  %x31-39           ; 1 - 9
 ALPHA     =  %x41-5A / %x61-7A ; A - Z / a - z
 SP        =  %x20
 VCHAR     =  %x21-7E           ; printable ASCII (no SP)
              Figure 5: ABNF Syntax of Content-Format-Spec

7. Security Considerations

 The indication of a media type in the data does not exempt a
 consuming application from properly checking its inputs.  Also, the
 ability for an attacker to supply crafted SenML data that specifies
 media types chosen by the attacker may expose vulnerabilities of
 handlers for these media types to the attacker.  This includes
 "decompression bombs", compressed data that is crafted to decompress
 to extremely large data items.

8. IANA Considerations

 IANA has assigned the following new labels in the "SenML Labels"
 subregistry of the "Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML)" registry
 [IANA.senml] (as defined in Section 12.2 of [RFC8428]) for the
 Content-Format indication, as per Table 1:
  +=====================+=======+===========+==========+===========+
  |                Name | Label | JSON Type | XML Type | Reference |
  +=====================+=======+===========+==========+===========+
  | Base Content-Format | bct   | String    | string   | RFC 9193  |
  +---------------------+-------+-----------+----------+-----------+
  |      Content-Format | ct    | String    | string   | RFC 9193  |
  +---------------------+-------+-----------+----------+-----------+
           Table 1: IANA Registration for New SenML Labels
 Note that, per Section 12.2 of [RFC8428], no CBOR labels nor
 Efficient XML Interchange (EXI) schemaId values (EXI ID column) are
 supplied.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

 [IANA.core-parameters]
            IANA, "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE)
            Parameters",
            <https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters>.
 [IANA.http-parameters]
            IANA, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Parameters",
            <https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters>.
 [IANA.media-types]
            IANA, "Media Types",
            <https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types>.
 [IANA.senml]
            IANA, "Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML)",
            <https://www.iana.org/assignments/senml>.
 [RFC2045]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
            Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
            Bodies", RFC 2045, DOI 10.17487/RFC2045, November 1996,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2045>.
 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 [RFC5234]  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>.
 [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
            Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
 [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
            2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
            May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
 [RFC8428]  Jennings, C., Shelby, Z., Arkko, J., Keranen, A., and C.
            Bormann, "Sensor Measurement Lists (SenML)", RFC 8428,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC8428, August 2018,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8428>.
 [RFC9110]  Fielding, R., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP
            Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110, DOI 10.17487/RFC9110,
            February 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110>.

9.2. Informative References

 [RFC1590]  Postel, J., "Media Type Registration Procedure", RFC 1590,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC1590, March 1994,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1590>.
 [RFC4180]  Shafranovich, Y., "Common Format and MIME Type for Comma-
            Separated Values (CSV) Files", RFC 4180,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC4180, October 2005,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4180>.
 [RFC4648]  Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
            Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
 [RFC6690]  Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link
            Format", RFC 6690, DOI 10.17487/RFC6690, August 2012,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6690>.
 [RFC6838]  Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
            Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
            RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
 [RFC8866]  Begen, A., Kyzivat, P., Perkins, C., and M. Handley, "SDP:
            Session Description Protocol", RFC 8866,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC8866, January 2021,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8866>.
 [RFC8949]  Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
            Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.

Acknowledgments

 The authors would like to thank Sérgio Abreu for the discussions
 leading to the design of this extension and Isaac Rivera for reviews
 and feedback.  Klaus Hartke suggested not burdening this document
 with a separate mandatory-to-implement version of the fields.  Alexey
 Melnikov, Jim Schaad, and Thomas Fossati provided helpful comments at
 Working Group Last Call.  Marco Tiloca asked for clarifying and using
 the term Content-Format-Spec.

Authors' Addresses

 Ari Keränen
 Ericsson
 FI-02420 Jorvas
 Finland
 Email: ari.keranen@ericsson.com
 Carsten Bormann
 Universität Bremen TZI
 Postfach 330440
 D-28359 Bremen
 Germany
 Phone: +49-421-218-63921
 Email: cabo@tzi.org
/home/gen.uk/domains/wiki.gen.uk/public_html/data/pages/rfc/rfc9193.txt · Last modified: 2022/06/08 00:05 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki