idnits 2.17.1 draft-jones-cbor-date-tag-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (March 9, 2020) is 1509 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7049 (Obsoleted by RFC 8949) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 CBOR Working Group M. Jones 3 Internet-Draft A. Nadalin 4 Intended status: Standards Track Microsoft 5 Expires: September 10, 2020 March 9, 2020 7 Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tag for Date 8 draft-jones-cbor-date-tag-00 10 Abstract 12 The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) is a data 13 format whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small 14 code size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the 15 need for version negotiation. 17 In CBOR, one point of extensibility is the definition of CBOR tags. 18 RFC 7049 defines two tags for time: CBOR tag 0 (RFC 3339 date/time 19 string) and tag 1 (Posix "seconds since the epoch"). Since then, 20 additional requirements have become known. This specification 21 defines a CBOR tag for an RFC 3339 date text string, for applications 22 needing a date representation without a time. It is intended as the 23 reference document for the IANA registration of the CBOR tag defined. 25 Status of This Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2020. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 1.1. Requirements Notation and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 2. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 2.1. Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags 63 Registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 1. Introduction 74 The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC7049] provides 75 for the interchange of structured data without a requirement for a 76 pre-agreed schema. RFC 7049 defines a basic set of data types, as 77 well as a tagging mechanism that enables extending the set of data 78 types supported via an IANA registry. 80 This specification defines a CBOR tag for a text string representing 81 a date but not a time. The tagged text string is represented as 82 specified by the RFC 3339 [RFC3339] "full-date" production. 84 1.1. Requirements Notation and Conventions 86 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 87 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 88 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 89 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 90 capitals, as shown here. 92 2. IANA Considerations 93 2.1. Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags Registrations 95 This section registers the following value in the IANA "Concise 96 Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags" registry [IANA.cbor-tags]. 98 o Tag: 1004 (value requested) 99 o Data Item: UTF-8 text string 100 o Semantics: RFC 3339 full-date string 101 o Reference: [[ this specification ]] 103 3. Security Considerations 105 The security considerations of RFC 7049 apply; the tag introduced 106 here is not expected to raise security considerations beyond those. 108 A date, of course, has significant security considerations; these 109 include the exploitation of ambiguities where the date is security 110 relevant or where the date is used in access control decisions. 112 4. References 114 4.1. Normative References 116 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 117 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 118 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 119 . 121 [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: 122 Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, 123 . 125 [RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object 126 Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049, 127 October 2013, . 129 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 130 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 131 May 2017, . 133 4.2. Informative References 135 [IANA.cbor-tags] 136 IANA, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags", 137 . 139 Acknowledgements 141 Thanks to Carsten Bormann for supporting creation of this 142 specification. Parts of the explanatory text in this specification 143 come from draft-bormann-cbor-time-tag-02. 145 Document History 147 [[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]] 149 -00 151 o Initial version. 153 Authors' Addresses 155 Michael B. Jones 156 Microsoft 158 Email: mbj@microsoft.com 159 URI: https://self-issued.info/ 161 Anthony Nadalin 162 Microsoft 164 Email: tonynad@microsoft.com