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

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<mailto: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<mailto:fdt@ietf.org> !

Cheers,
Scott

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org<mailto: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<mailto:scott@adligo.com>>, <webtransport@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:marc@petit-huguenin.org>
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org<https://marc.petit-huguenin.org/>
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug

--
Regards,
Scott Morgan
President & CEO
Adligo Inc
http://www.adligo.com<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<mailto:scott@adligo.com>
skype:adligo1?call
Send Me Files Securely:
https://www.sendthisfile.com/f.jsp?id=ewOnyeFQM18IDRf7MMIdolfI

<signature.asc>--
FDT mailing list
FDT@ietf.org<mailto:FDT@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fdt