Re: [fdt] [Webtransport] Standards for protocol headers?

[Patrick McManus <[e-mail]>]

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 <
[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 @ [e-mail] !
>
> Cheers,
> Scott
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[e-mail]>
> Date: Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 10:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [Webtransport] Standards for protocol headers?
> To: Scott Morgan <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
>
>
> 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 [e-mail], 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 <
> [e-mail]>
> > 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: [e-mail]
> 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
> [e-mail]
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fdt
>
>
> --
> Webtransport mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/webtransport
>