path: root/doc/rfc/rfc9090.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        C. Bormann
Request for Comments: 9090                        Universität Bremen TZI
Category: Standards Track                                      July 2021
ISSN: 2070-1721


Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Object Identifiers

Abstract

   The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR), defined in RFC 8949,
   is a data format whose design goals include the possibility of
   extremely small code size, fairly small message size, and
   extensibility without the need for version negotiation.

   This document defines CBOR tags for object identifiers (OIDs) and is
   the reference document for the IANA registration of the CBOR tags so
   defined.

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/rfc9090.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
     1.1.  Terminology
   2.  Object Identifiers
     2.1.  Requirements on the Byte String Being Tagged
     2.2.  Preferred Serialization Considerations
     2.3.  Discussion
   3.  Basic Examples
     3.1.  Encoding of the SHA-256 OID
     3.2.  Encoding of a MIB Relative OID
   4.  Tag Factoring with Arrays and Maps
     4.1.  Preferred Serialization Considerations
     4.2.  Tag Factoring Example: X.500 Distinguished Name
   5.  CDDL Control Operators
   6.  CDDL Type Names
   7.  IANA Considerations
     7.1.  CBOR Tags
     7.2.  CDDL Control Operators
   8.  Security Considerations
   9.  References
     9.1.  Normative References
     9.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgments
   Contributors
   Author's Address

1.  Introduction

   The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949] provides
   for the interchange of structured data without a requirement for a
   pre-agreed schema.  [RFC8949] defines a basic set of data types, as
   well as a tagging mechanism that enables extending the set of data
   types supported via an IANA registry.

   This document defines CBOR tags for object identifiers (OIDs)
   [X.660], which many IETF protocols carry.  The ASN.1 Basic Encoding
   Rules (BER) [X.690] specify binary encodings of both (absolute)
   object identifiers and relative object identifiers.  The contents of
   these encodings (the "value" part of BER's type-length-value
   structure) can be carried in a CBOR byte string.  This document
   defines two CBOR tags that cover the two kinds of ASN.1 object
   identifiers encoded in this way and a third one to enable a common
   optimization.  The tags can also be applied to arrays and maps to
   efficiently tag all elements of an array or all keys of a map.  This
   document is the reference document for the IANA registration of the
   tags so defined.

1.1.  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 terminology of [RFC8949] applies; in particular, the term "byte"
   is used in its now-customary sense as a synonym for "octet".  The
   verb "to tag (something)" is used to express the construction of a
   CBOR tag, with the object (something) as the tag content and a tag
   number indicated elsewhere in the sentence (for instance, in a "with"
   clause or by the shorthand "an NNN tag" for "a tag with tag number
   NNN").  The term "SDNV" (Self-Delimiting Numeric Value) is used as
   defined in [RFC6256], with the additional restriction detailed in
   Section 2.1 (no leading zeros).

2.  Object Identifiers

   The International Object Identifier tree [X.660] is a hierarchically
   managed space of identifiers, each of which is uniquely represented
   as a sequence of unsigned integer values [X.680].  (These integer
   values are called "primary integer values" in [X.660] because they
   can be accompanied by (not necessarily unambiguous) secondary
   identifiers.  We ignore the latter and simply use the term "integer
   values" here, occasionally calling out their unsignedness.  We also
   use the term "arc" when the focus is on the edge of the tree labeled
   by such an integer value, as well as in the sense of a "long arc",
   i.e., a (sub)sequence of such integer values.)

   While these sequences can easily be represented in CBOR arrays of
   unsigned integers, a more compact representation can often be
   achieved by adopting the widely used representation of object
   identifiers defined in BER; this representation may also be more
   amenable to processing by other software that makes use of object
   identifiers.

   BER represents the sequence of unsigned integers by concatenating
   self-delimiting representations [RFC6256] of each of the integer
   values in sequence.

   ASN.1 distinguishes absolute object identifiers (ASN.1 type "OBJECT
   IDENTIFIER"), which begin at a root arc ([X.660], Clause 3.5.21),
   from relative object identifiers (ASN.1 type "RELATIVE-OID"), which
   begin relative to some object identifier known from context ([X.680],
   Clause 3.8.63).  As a special optimization, BER combines the first
   two integers in an absolute object identifier into one numeric
   identifier by making use of the property of the hierarchy that the
   first arc has only three integer values (0, 1, and 2) and the second
   arcs under 0 and 1 are limited to the integer values between 0 and
   39.  (The root arc "joint-iso-itu-t(2)" has no such limitations on
   its second arc.)  If X and Y are the first two integer values, the
   single integer value actually encoded is computed as:

      X * 40 + Y

   The inverse transformation (again making use of the known ranges of X
   and Y) is applied when decoding the object identifier.

   Since the semantics of absolute and relative object identifiers
   differ and since it is very common for companies to use self-assigned
   numbers under the arc "1.3.6.1.4.1" (IANA Private Enterprise Number
   OID [IANA.enterprise-numbers]) that adds 5 fixed bytes to an encoded
   OID value, this specification defines three tags, collectively called
   the "OID tags" here:

   Tag number 111:  Used to tag a byte string as the BER encoding
      [X.690] of an absolute object identifier (simply "object
      identifier" or "OID").

   Tag number 110:  Used to tag a byte string as the BER encoding
      [X.690] of a relative object identifier (also called "relative
      OID").  Since the encoding of each number is the same as for Self-
      Delimiting Numeric Values (SDNVs) [RFC6256], this tag can also be
      used for tagging a byte string that contains a sequence of zero or
      more SDNVs (or a more application-specific tag can be created for
      such an application).

   Tag number 112:  Structurally like tag 110 but understood to be
      relative to "1.3.6.1.4.1" (IANA Private Enterprise Number OID
      [IANA.enterprise-numbers]).  Hence, the semantics of the result
      are that of an absolute object identifier.

2.1.  Requirements on the Byte String Being Tagged

   To form a valid tag, a byte string tagged with 111, 110, or 112 MUST
   be syntactically valid contents (the value part) for a BER
   representation of an object identifier (see Table 1):

                    +============+====================+
                    | Tag number | Section of [X.690] |
                    +============+====================+
                    | 111        | 8.19               |
                    +------------+--------------------+
                    | 110        | 8.20               |
                    +------------+--------------------+
                    | 112        | 8.20               |
                    +------------+--------------------+

                          Table 1: Tag Number and
                       Section of X.690 Governing Tag
                                  Content

   This is a concatenation of zero or more SDNV values, where each SDNV
   value is a sequence of one or more bytes that all have their most
   significant bit set, except for the last byte, where it is unset.
   Also, the first byte of each SDNV cannot be a leading zero in SDNV's
   base-128 arithmetic, so it cannot take the value 0x80 (bullet (c) in
   Section 8.1.2.4.2 of [X.690]).

   In other words:

   *  The byte string's first byte, and any byte that follows a byte
      that has the most significant bit unset, MUST NOT be 0x80 (this
      requirement requires expressing the integer values in their
      shortest form, with no leading zeroes).

   *  The byte string's last byte MUST NOT have the most significant bit
      set (this requirement excludes an incomplete final integer value).

   If either of these invalid conditions are encountered, the tag is
   invalid.

   [X.680] restricts RELATIVE-OID values to having at least one arc,
   i.e., their encoding would have at least one SDNV.  This
   specification permits empty relative object identifiers; they may
   still be excluded by application semantics.

   To facilitate the search for specific object ID values, it is
   RECOMMENDED that definite length encoding (see Section 3.2.3 of
   [RFC8949]) be used for the byte strings that are used as tag content
   for these tags.

   The valid set of byte strings can also be expressed using regular
   expressions on bytes, using no specific notation but resembling Perl
   Compatible Regular Expressions [PCRE].  Unlike typical regular
   expressions that operate on character sequences, the following
   regular expressions take bytes as their domain, so they can be
   applied directly to CBOR byte strings.

   For byte strings with tag 111:

      "/^(([\x81-\xFF][\x80-\xFF]*)?[\x00-\x7F])+$/"

   For byte strings with tags 110 or 112:

      "/^(([\x81-\xFF][\x80-\xFF]*)?[\x00-\x7F])*$/"

   A tag with tagged content that does not conform to the applicable
   regular expression is invalid.

2.2.  Preferred Serialization Considerations

   For an absolute OID with a prefix of "1.3.6.1.4.1", representations
   with both the 111 and 112 tags are applicable, where the
   representation with 112 will be five bytes shorter (by leaving out
   the prefix h'2b06010401' from the enclosed byte string).  This
   specification makes that shorter representation the preferred
   serialization (see Sections 3.4 and 4.1 of [RFC8949]).  Note that
   this also implies that the Core Deterministic Encoding Requirements
   (Section 4.2.1 of [RFC8949]) require the use of 112 tags instead of
   111 tags wherever that is possible.

2.3.  Discussion

   Staying close to the way object identifiers are encoded in ASN.1 BER
   makes back-and-forth translation easy; otherwise, we would choose a
   more efficient encoding.  Object identifiers in IETF protocols are
   serialized in dotted decimal form or BER form, so there is an
   advantage in not inventing a third form.  Also, expectations of the
   cost of encoding object identifiers are based on BER; using a
   different encoding might not be aligned with these expectations.  If
   additional information about an OID is desired, lookup services such
   as the OID Resolution Service (ORS) [X.672] and the OID Repository
   [OID-INFO] are available.

3.  Basic Examples

   This section gives simple examples of an absolute and a relative
   object identifier, represented via tag numbers 111 and 110,
   respectively.

3.1.  Encoding of the SHA-256 OID

   ASN.1 Value Notation:
      { joint-iso-itu-t(2) country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101)
        csor(3) nistalgorithm(4) hashalgs(2) sha256(1) }

   Dotted Decimal Notation:  2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.1

   06                                # UNIVERSAL TAG 6
      09                             # 9 bytes, primitive
         60 86 48 01 65 03 04 02 01  # X.690 Clause 8.19
   #      |   840  1  |  3  4  2  1    show component encoding
   #   2.16         101

                        Figure 1: SHA-256 OID in BER

   D8 6F                             # tag(111)
      49                             # 0b010_01001: mt 2, 9 bytes
         60 86 48 01 65 03 04 02 01  # X.690 Clause 8.19

                       Figure 2: SHA-256 OID in CBOR

3.2.  Encoding of a MIB Relative OID

   Given some OID (e.g., "lowpanMib", assumed to be "1.3.6.1.2.1.226"
   [RFC7388]), to which the following is added:

   ASN.1 Value Notation:
      { lowpanObjects(1) lowpanStats(1) lowpanOutTransmits(29) }

   Dotted Decimal Notation:  .1.1.29

   0D                                # UNIVERSAL TAG 13
      03                             # 3 bytes, primitive
         01 01 1D                    # X.690 Clause 8.20
   #      1  1 29                      show component encoding

              Figure 3: MIB Relative Object Identifier in BER

   D8 6E                             # tag(110)
      43                             # 0b010_00011: mt 2 (bstr), 3 bytes
         01 01 1D                    # X.690 Clause 8.20

              Figure 4: MIB Relative Object Identifier in CBOR

   This relative OID saves seven bytes compared to the full OID
   encoding.

4.  Tag Factoring with Arrays and Maps

   The tag content of OID tags can be byte strings (as discussed above)
   but also CBOR arrays and maps.  The idea in the latter case is that
   the tag construct is factored out from each individual item in the
   container; the tag is placed on the array or map instead.

   When the tag content of an OID tag is an array, this means that the
   respective tag is imputed to all elements of the array that are byte
   strings, arrays, or maps.  (There is no effect on other elements,
   including text strings or tags.)  For example, when the tag content
   of a 111 tag is an array, every array element that is a byte string
   is an OID, and every element that is an array or map is, in turn,
   treated as discussed here.

   When the tag content of an OID tag is a map, this means that a tag
   with the same tag number is imputed to all keys in the map that are
   byte strings, arrays, or maps; again, there is no effect on keys of
   other major types.  Note that there is also no effect on the values
   in the map.

   As a result of these rules, tag factoring in nested arrays and maps
   is supported.  For example, a 3-dimensional array of OIDs can be
   composed by using a single 111 tag containing an array of arrays of
   arrays of byte strings.  All such byte strings are then considered
   OIDs.

4.1.  Preferred Serialization Considerations

   Where tag factoring with tag number 111 is used, some OIDs enclosed
   in the tag may be encoded in a shorter way by using tag number 112
   instead of encoding an unadorned byte string.  This remains the
   preferred serialization (see also Section 2.2).  However, this
   specification does not make the presence or absence of tag factoring
   a preferred serialization; application protocols can define where tag
   factoring is to be used or not (and will need to do so if they have
   deterministic encoding requirements).

4.2.  Tag Factoring Example: X.500 Distinguished Name

   Consider the X.500 distinguished name:

              +==============================+=============+
              | Attribute Types              | Attribute   |
              |                              | Values      |
              +==============================+=============+
              | c (2.5.4.6)                  | US          |
              +------------------------------+-------------+
              | l (2.5.4.7)                  | Los Angeles |
              | s (2.5.4.8)                  | CA          |
              | postalCode (2.5.4.17)        | 90013       |
              +------------------------------+-------------+
              | street (2.5.4.9)             | 532 S Olive |
              |                              | St          |
              +------------------------------+-------------+
              | businessCategory (2.5.4.15)  | Public Park |
              | buildingName                 | Pershing    |
              | (0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.48) | Square      |
              +------------------------------+-------------+

                Table 2: Example X.500 Distinguished Name

   Table 2 has four "relative distinguished names" (RDNs).  The country
   (first) and street (third) RDNs are single valued.  The second and
   fourth RDNs are multivalued.

   The equivalent representations in CBOR diagnostic notation (Section 8
   of [RFC8949]) and CBOR are:

   111([{ h'550406': "US" },
        { h'550407': "Los Angeles",
          h'550408': "CA",
          h'550411': "90013" },
        { h'550409': "532 S Olive St" },
        { h'55040f': "Public Park",
          h'0992268993f22c640130': "Pershing Square" }])

          Figure 5: Distinguished Name in CBOR Diagnostic Notation

   d8 6f                                      # tag(111)
      84                                      # array(4)
         a1                                   # map(1)
            43 550406                         # 2.5.4.6 (4)
            62                                # text(2)
               5553                           # "US"
         a3                                   # map(3)
            43 550407                         # 2.5.4.7 (4)
            6b                                # text(11)
               4c6f7320416e67656c6573         # "Los Angeles"
            43 550408                         # 2.5.4.8 (4)
            62                                # text(2)
               4341                           # "CA"
            43 550411                         # 2.5.4.17 (4)
            65                                # text(5)
               3930303133                     # "90013"
         a1                                   # map(1)
            43 550409                         # 2.5.4.9 (4)
            6e                                # text(14)
               3533322053204f6c697665205374   # "532 S Olive St"
         a2                                   # map(2)
            43 55040f                         # 2.5.4.15 (4)
            6b                                # text(11)
               5075626c6963205061726b         # "Public Park"
            4a 0992268993f22c640130    # 0.9.2342.19200300.100.1.48 (11)
            6f                                # text(15)
               5065727368696e6720537175617265 # "Pershing Square"

              Figure 6: Distinguished Name in CBOR (109 Bytes)

   (This example encoding assumes that all attribute values are UTF-8
   strings or can be represented as UTF-8 strings with no loss of
   information.)

5.  CDDL Control Operators

   Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) specifications [RFC8610] may
   want to specify the use of SDNVs or SDNV sequences (as defined for
   the tag content for tag 110).  This document introduces two new
   control operators that can be applied to a target value that is a
   byte string:

   *  ".sdnv", with a control type that contains unsigned integers.  The
      byte string is specified to be encoded as an SDNV (BER encoding)
      [RFC6256] for the matching values of the control type.

   *  ".sdnvseq", with a control type that contains arrays of unsigned
      integers.  The byte string is specified to be encoded as a
      sequence of SDNVs (BER encoding) [RFC6256] that decodes to an
      array of unsigned integers matching the control type.

   *  ".oid", like ".sdnvseq", except that the X*40+Y translation for
      absolute OIDs is included (see Figure 8).

   Figure 7 shows an example for the use of ".sdnvseq" for a part of a
   structure using OIDs that could be used in Figure 6; Figure 8 shows
   the same with the ".oid" operator.

   country-rdn = {country-oid => country-value}
   country-oid = bytes .sdnvseq [85, 4, 6]
   country-value = text .size 2

                          Figure 7: Using .sdnvseq

   country-rdn = {country-oid => country-value}
   country-oid = bytes .oid [2, 5, 4, 6]
   country-value = text .size 2

                            Figure 8: Using .oid

   Note that the control type need not be a literal; for example, "bytes
   .oid [2, 5, 4, *uint]" matches all OIDs inside OID arc "2.5.4",
   "attributeType".

6.  CDDL Type Names

   For the use with CDDL, the type names defined in Figure 9 are
   recommended:

   oid = #6.111(bstr)
   roid = #6.110(bstr)
   pen = #6.112(bstr)

                 Figure 9: Recommended Type Names for CDDL

7.  IANA Considerations

7.1.  CBOR Tags

   IANA has assigned the CBOR tag numbers in Table 3 in the 1+1 byte
   space (24..255) of the "CBOR Tags" registry [IANA.cbor-tags], with
   this document as the specification reference.

     +=====+===============+============================+===========+
     | Tag | Data Item     | Semantics                  | Reference |
     +=====+===============+============================+===========+
     | 111 | byte string,  | object identifier (BER     | RFC 9090  |
     |     | array, or map | encoding)                  |           |
     +-----+---------------+----------------------------+-----------+
     | 110 | byte string,  | relative object identifier | RFC 9090  |
     |     | array, or map | (BER encoding); SDNV       |           |
     |     |               | [RFC6256] sequence         |           |
     +-----+---------------+----------------------------+-----------+
     | 112 | byte string,  | object identifier (BER     | RFC 9090  |
     |     | array, or map | encoding), relative to     |           |
     |     |               | 1.3.6.1.4.1                |           |
     +-----+---------------+----------------------------+-----------+

                         Table 3: New Tag Numbers

7.2.  CDDL Control Operators

   IANA has assigned the CDDL control operators in Table 4 in the "CDDL
   Control Operators" registry [IANA.cddl], with this document as the
   specification reference.

                          +==========+===========+
                          | Name     | Reference |
                          +==========+===========+
                          | .sdnv    | RFC 9090  |
                          +----------+-----------+
                          | .sdnvseq | RFC 9090  |
                          +----------+-----------+
                          | .oid     | RFC 9090  |
                          +----------+-----------+

                             Table 4: New CDDL
                             Control Operators

8.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations of [RFC8949] apply.

   The encodings in Clauses 8.19 and 8.20 of [X.690] are quite compact
   and unambiguous but MUST be followed precisely to avoid security
   pitfalls.  In particular, the requirements set out in Section 2.1 of
   this document need to be followed; otherwise, an attacker may be able
   to subvert a checking process by submitting alternative
   representations that are later taken as the original (or even
   something else entirely) by another decoder that is intended to be
   protected by the checking process.

   OIDs and relative OIDs can always be treated as opaque byte strings.
   Actually understanding the structure that was used for generating
   them is not necessary, and, except for checking the structure
   requirements, it is strongly NOT RECOMMENDED to perform any
   processing of this kind (e.g., converting into dotted notation and
   back) unless absolutely necessary.  If the OIDs are translated into
   other representations, the usual security considerations for non-
   trivial representation conversions apply; the integer values are
   unlimited in range.

   An attacker might trick an application into using a byte string
   inside a tag-factored data item, where the byte string is not
   actually intended to fall under one of the tags defined here.  This
   may cause the application to emit data with semantics different from
   what was intended.  Applications therefore need to be restrictive
   with respect to what data items they apply tag factoring to.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

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

   [IANA.cddl]
              IANA, "Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL)",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cddl>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6256]  Eddy, W. and E. Davies, "Using Self-Delimiting Numeric
              Values in Protocols", RFC 6256, DOI 10.17487/RFC6256, May
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6256>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8610]  Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
              Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
              Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
              JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
              June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.

   [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>.

   [X.660]    ITU-T, "Information technology - Procedures for the
              operation of object identifier registration authorities:
              General procedures and top arcs of the international
              object identifier tree", ITU-T Recommendation X.660, July
              2011, <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.660>.

   [X.680]    ITU-T, "Information technology - Abstract Syntax Notation
              One (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation", ITU-T
              Recommendation X.680, August 2015,
              <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.680>.

   [X.690]    ITU-T, "Information technology - ASN.1 encoding rules:
              Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
              Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
              (DER)", ITU-T Recommendation X.690, August 2015,
              <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.690>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [IANA.enterprise-numbers]
              IANA, "Private Enterprise Numbers",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers>.

   [OID-INFO] Orange SA, "Object Identifier (OID) Repository",
              <http://www.oid-info.com/>.

   [PCRE]     "PCRE - Perl Compatible Regular Expressions",
              <http://www.pcre.org/>.

   [RFC7388]  Schoenwaelder, J., Sehgal, A., Tsou, T., and C. Zhou,
              "Definition of Managed Objects for IPv6 over Low-Power
              Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 7388,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7388, October 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7388>.

   [X.672]    ITU-T, "Information technology - Open systems
              interconnection - Object identifier resolution system
              (ORS)", ITU-T Recommendation X.672, August 2010,
              <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.672>.

Acknowledgments

   Sean Leonard started the work on this document in 2014 with an
   elaborate proposal.  Jim Schaad provided a significant review of this
   document.  Rob Wilton's IESG review prompted us to provide preferred
   serialization considerations.

Contributors

   Sean Leonard
   Penango, Inc.
   5900 Wilshire Boulevard
   21st Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90036
   United States of America

   Email: dev+ietf@seantek.com


Author's Address

   Carsten Bormann
   Universität Bremen TZI
   Postfach 330440
   D-28359 Bremen
   Germany

   Phone: +49-421-218-63921
   Email: cabo@tzi.org