Re: [fdt] [Webtransport] Standards for protocol headers?
Scott Morgan <scott@adligo.com> Tue, 16 June 2020 01:09 UTC
Return-Path: <scott@adligo.com>
X-Original-To: fdt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: fdt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC43E3A0F3F for <fdt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:09:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=adligo-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WNRrEA3CI1PR for <fdt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x230.google.com (mail-oi1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A63883A0F36 for <fdt@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x230.google.com with SMTP id k4so17781357oik.2 for <fdt@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=adligo-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=GukhbIkJH3YxlnNCvK1IAJjkBRLMPC+Fdrwwabghsws=; b=ubSeuPPV4eyIVK6C1wAf5ZNT/R4qtcfP2PKeQt3KNw2JJacPF2nfMucvBOauOvJuY9 otwuFbENbsn932rSqaU7wccy42/qKImzFrwa1RG+eaGjzEy0hBd8QNlU9JU/F2+gPJXI J9Oznpr4Aeu2L0WPnsGYBFQIWsFOnNJXwgbr3YalZcIQFIP/5Ud4ZdIw2m7oB4dncFN4 ODAR/Gl0dDso4YJ8o0oSNXUBIdiRaqFGm9gieLfAmPBAP5Eax8yJCzSISIGfIx6sPQjC G/cdX2rV6amIhx+miYSxCCNhzhVQPIVJiQKMzvm+ugyZ4Gis5wyhOkP4jOGInpI6aGNg 5PNA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=GukhbIkJH3YxlnNCvK1IAJjkBRLMPC+Fdrwwabghsws=; b=uibbmf+SvyoEVywq0CT86XQoH1WgO+kosCXjlVe+MRJ40NSpFU1k7tuC/j+1vV022i sceUPyun/ga47C59GMyao2bbCqoFNPT3rraltSca75v5STHBOU8uUzCy+NRzypXf07uj wNmN2klX9w8X0YYmIrQND3lgjMLfoaWMTNQS6x6DaKF62w8okH9w+YM51goaaB0/vjrv wYRMssYPH+vGPG1SSFzeb8ge6gPIyB2p/DSHymdiulsLntrRB8xlmBV5c7t9wm1T8eSP wIvoYtb7K5O3MAdoUcfFxmY41wZrWyvb+QjB18ymaMmshblZjGdY2hZI0WqeP/v87JF6 eXlQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5307kFndLfBljGi9mfIMXeWdRbVrQry0/0SC7GUZvfpW2Fx7w5Ky bkOCqoReMhBGSeai0WD5yy5A21fX1VSw0Qq66ioTPdqWKiJWmQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzrlQOzoBmBL5d5YiP5EAM0KdE+Ft63RQH42SvF9QPHNb/txR/F0EREdHrC9ZEGodZkrUCwOGZoYLsT74Ql+as=
X-Received: by 2002:a54:4e81:: with SMTP id c1mr1564556oiy.151.1592269785657; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANEdHmhypZE01SHw--UgrpG1yuOU67cKXHv0Jbecyb7sJzYPZA@mail.gmail.com> <2804eb55-e79a-3383-9ebf-cd4f495b273a@petit-huguenin.org> <CANEdHmhPWwO-pO7D_biTQ1_b5oh3xCsdXEi7Urf8sXJQcvVVGw@mail.gmail.com> <ecabce9e-d09f-6ce1-cd17-dea1e793a4cf@acm.org> <CANEdHmiZVdx93Sj1xf6wKPhoBxWGTB9q_WbesJx5FJ26Q0Jzjg@mail.gmail.com> <9796F6C9-ABB9-4AD4-ADA0-A6E275DAE3EE@glasgow.ac.uk> <CAOdDvNoUphx62=a_SOsEfMpxn+Lf7u0yhd0-+s2XBBLwRyVnyA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNoUphx62=a_SOsEfMpxn+Lf7u0yhd0-+s2XBBLwRyVnyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Scott Morgan <scott@adligo.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 20:09:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CANEdHmgXFUB4B3Taf1hig8kuhxG1vS=SvweDho9mxvQVyvEZyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: fdt@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f60c5e05a829326a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/fdt/ksu_8ZQtXx16MSZKm2GpiZrjGbM>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 04:00:34 -0700
Subject: Re: [fdt] [Webtransport] Standards for protocol headers?
X-BeenThere: fdt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the discussion of the use of formal description techniques in IETF documents <fdt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/fdt>, <mailto:fdt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/fdt/>
List-Post: <mailto:fdt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:fdt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fdt>, <mailto:fdt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 01:09:50 -0000
Hi All, Thanks for your suggestions! I am really trying to scope my effort as; *** How to interpret bytes! *** ASCII & in particular # 10 seems significant! A single byte that splits lines (and could spit other data up); https://www.petefreitag.com/item/863.cfm#:~:text=The%20ASCII%20character%20code%2010,a%20line%20in%20a%20file. I'm looking to replace JSON & XML as the dominant transfer format for REST (and other styles/protocols) that would also be a good standard for protocol level information (bits and bytes). The ASCII newline byte and A8 (intersection of ASCII & UTF-8) seems to be logical spit (binary vs character markup data). Keep the RFCs coming my way! On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 1:53 PM Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> wrote: > you might be interested in structured field values for http > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure/ > > -P > > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 8:08 AM Stephen McQuistin < > Stephen.McQuistin@glasgow.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Hi Scott, >> >> We have a draft (draft-mcquistin-augmented-ascii-diagrams) that is >> looking to add tooling (e.g., to generate parser code) around “traditional” >> packet header diagrams, by using a consistent format for both the diagram >> and the text that accompanies it. >> >> In terms of other PDU description languages, the recent QUIC drafts have >> replaced packet diagrams with a bespoke description language: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-29#section-1.3. >> >> These are both much simpler than the languages that Marc mentioned, and >> only deal with PDU description rather than data layout description more >> generally, but might be worth a look. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Stephen >> >> On 13 Jun 2020, at 01:53, Scott Morgan <scott@adligo.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Marc, >> >> Thanks, I'm not trying to be intentionally confusing :) In an attempt >> to clarify, I'm trying to create a new structured PDU format that could be >> used to define PDU description languages (not a primary concern) as well as >> larger data structures like files or bytes in datagrams. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_data_unit >> >> Lets continue @ fdt@ietf.org ! >> >> Cheers, >> Scott >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org> >> Date: Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:03 AM >> Subject: Re: [Webtransport] Standards for protocol headers? >> To: Scott Morgan <scott@adligo.com>, <webtransport@ietf.org> >> >> >> Hi Scott, >> >> I still find your terminology confusing. I am not sure if you are >> proposing to design a new PDU description language (ala ASN.1, ABNF, RBNF, >> CDDL, XML RELAX, etc..) or a new structured PDU format (ala DER, BER, XML, >> JSON, CBOR, etc...). If it is the former, I would suggest to resend your >> email to fdt@ietf.org, where we discuss this kind of things. >> >> Thanks. >> >> On 6/12/20 7:25 AM, Scott Morgan wrote: >> > Hi Marc, >> > >> > Thanks for responding! I meant 'protocol header' in the broadest >> > sense. I have implemented some protocols in the past (Web Socket v13, >> SMTP >> > etc) and work a lot with JSON and XML as I mentioned previously. Here >> are >> > some general frustrations (i.e. problem statement) that I'm looking to >> > overcome; >> > >> > 1) JSON and XML generally lack support for binary data (there are some >> > workarounds but nothing is super great). >> > 2) JSON and XML both now have the concept of a Schema >> > Note I think the concept of a Schema is a good thing but also >> feel >> > that Schemas often don't cover all >> > Metadata that needs to be covered. Perhaps the concept of a Schema >> > needs to be enhanced by UsageMetadata information. >> > Also note I am frustrated with JSON's inability to provide >> human >> > readable schemas (multi line text in the .json file (not /n)). >> > I also have frustrations with XML schemas and XML (like >> everyone >> > else who now favors JSON over XML) >> > 3) Protocol's often have Headers and other information which act in a >> > similar fashion to Schemas (i.e. they describe / specify data >> structures) >> > >> > I'm wondering if it's time for a new markup language that can support >> > binary data and assist in specifying protocol byte segments in addition >> to >> > more general purpose transport and storage data (like JSON & XML do). >> > I'm thinking about calling it 'Classification Markup Notation'. >> > >> > I messaged this to the group just to throw the idea out there, to get >> > feedback and also to find collaborators. >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 7:53 AM Marc Petit-Huguenin < >> marc@petit-huguenin.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On 6/10/20 5:14 PM, Scott Morgan wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >> >>> >> >>> I have been working with JSON, XML and some protocol headers >> recently >> >>> and I am wondering... >> >>> Why are there no real standard text formats for protocol headers, or >> am I >> >>> missing something? >> >>> >> >>> It seems to me that a slightly more streamlined/optimal binary/markup >> >>> standard could help protocols attain POCs and adoption much quicker >> and >> >>> help reduce some of the work defining protocols. >> >>> >> >>> Any thoughts on this topic? >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "protocol header"? My >> >> understanding of that term is the fixed part at the beginning of a >> PDU, PDU >> >> that also contains a variable length part after it (as in UDP Header, >> TCP >> >> Header, RTP Header, HTTP, SIP, SMTP etc...), but that definition does >> not >> >> seem to apply to JSON or XML (as a whole). >> >> >> >> -- >> Marc Petit-Huguenin >> Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org >> Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org >> Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Scott Morgan >> President & CEO >> Adligo Inc >> http://www.adligo.com >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-morgan-21739415 >> A+ Better Business Bureau Rating >> <https://www.bbb.org/chicago/business-reviews/computer-software-publishers-and-developers/adligo-inc-in-chicago-il-88381256> >> https://github.com/adligo >> >> By Appointment Only: >> 1-866-968-1893 Ex 101 >> scott@adligo.com >> skype:adligo1?call >> Send Me Files Securely: >> *https://www.sendthisfile.com/f.jsp?id=ewOnyeFQM18IDRf7MMIdolfI >> <https://www.sendthisfile.com/f.jsp?id=ewOnyeFQM18IDRf7MMIdolfI>* >> >> >> >> <signature.asc>-- >> FDT mailing list >> FDT@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fdt >> >> >> -- >> Webtransport mailing list >> Webtransport@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webtransport >> > -- Regards, Scott Morgan President & CEO Adligo Inc http://www.adligo.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-morgan-21739415 A+ Better Business Bureau Rating <https://www.bbb.org/chicago/business-reviews/computer-software-publishers-and-developers/adligo-inc-in-chicago-il-88381256> https://github.com/adligo By Appointment Only: 1-866-968-1893 Ex 101 scott@adligo.com skype:adligo1?call Send Me Files Securely: *https://www.sendthisfile.com/f.jsp?id=ewOnyeFQM18IDRf7MMIdolfI <https://www.sendthisfile.com/f.jsp?id=ewOnyeFQM18IDRf7MMIdolfI>*
- Re: [fdt] [Webtransport] Standards for protocol h… Stephen McQuistin
- [fdt] Fwd: [Webtransport] Standards for protocol … Scott Morgan
- Re: [fdt] [Webtransport] Standards for protocol h… Patrick McManus
- Re: [fdt] [Webtransport] Standards for protocol h… Scott Morgan
- Re: [fdt] [Webtransport] Standards for protocol h… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [fdt] [Webtransport] Standards for protocol h… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [fdt] [Webtransport] Standards for protocol h… Scott Morgan
- Re: [fdt] [Webtransport] Standards for protocol h… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [fdt] [Webtransport] Standards for protocol h… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [fdt] [Webtransport] Standards for protocol h… Scott Morgan
- Re: [fdt] [Webtransport] Standards for protocol h… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [fdt] [Webtransport] Standards for protocol h… Scott Morgan