Delay-Tolerant Networking E.J. Birrane
Internet-Draft E.A. Annis
Intended status: Standards Track B. Sipos
Expires: 22 August 2025 JHU/APL
18 February 2025
DTNMA Application Resource Identifier (ARI)
draft-ietf-dtn-ari-04
Abstract
This document defines the structure, format, and features of the
naming scheme for the objects defined in the Delay-Tolerant
Networking Management Architecture (DTNMA) Application Management
Model (AMM), in support of challenged network management solutions
described in the DTNMA document.
This document defines the DTNMA Application Resource Identifier
(ARI), using a text-form based on the common Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI) and a binary-form based on Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR). These meet the needs for a concise, typed,
parameterized, and hierarchically organized set of managed data
elements.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 22 August 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Use of ABNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Use of CDDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. ARI Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Resource Parameterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Compressible Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1. Enumerated Path Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.2. Relative Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.3. Patterning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. ARI Logical Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Names, Enumerations, Comparisons, and
Canonicalizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Literals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Object References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.1. Organization ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.2. Model ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.3. Model Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.4. Object Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.5. Object ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.6. Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4. Namespace References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. ARI Text Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1. URIs and Percent Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2. Literals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2.1. Typed Literal Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2.2. Untyped Literal Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2.3. Preferred Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.3. Object References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.4. Namespace References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.5. Relative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5. ARI Binary Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.1. Intermediate CBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2. Literals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.3. Object References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.4. Namespace References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
5.5. Relative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6. Processing Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.1. ID Segment Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.2. Relative Reference Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7. ARI Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.1. ARI Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
8. Transcoding Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
9. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
11.1. URI Schemes Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
11.2. DTN Management Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Appendix A. Example Equivalences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
A.1. Primitive-Typed Literal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
A.2. Timestamp Literal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
A.3. Semantic-Typed Literal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
A.4. Complex CBOR Literal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
A.5. Non-parameterized Object Reference . . . . . . . . . . . 51
A.6. Parameterized Object Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
A.7. Recursive Structure with Percent Encodings . . . . . . . 52
Appendix B. Implementation Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
1. Introduction
The unique limitations of Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) transport
capabilities [RFC4838] necessitate increased reliance on individual
node behavior. These limitations are considered part of the expected
operational environment of the system and, thus, contemporaneous end-
to-end data exchange cannot be considered a requirement for
successful communication.
The primary DTN transport mechanism, Bundle Protocol version 7 (BPv7)
[RFC9171], standardizes a store-and-forward behavior required to
communicate effectively between endpoints that may never co-exist in
a single network partition. BPv7 might be deployed in static
environments, but the design and operation of BPv7 cannot presume
that to be the case.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
Similarly, the management of any BPv7 protocol agent (BPA) (or any
software reliant upon DTN for its communication) cannot presume to
operate in a resourced, connected network. Just as DTN transport
must be delay-tolerant, DTN network management must also be delay-
tolerant.
The DTN Management Architecture (DTNMA) [RFC9675] outlines an
architecture that achieves this result through the self-management of
a DTN node as configured by one or more remote managers in an
asynchronous and open-loop system. An important part of this
architecture is the definition of a conceptual data schema for
defining resources configured by remote managers and implemented by
the local autonomy of a DTN node.
The DTNMA Application Management Model (AMM) [I-D.ietf-dtn-amm]
defines a logical schema that can be used to represent data types and
structures, autonomous controls, and other kinds of information
expected to be required for the local management of a DTN node. The
AMM further describes a physical data model, called the Application
Data Model (ADM), that can be defined in the context of applications
to create resources in accordance with the AMM schema. These named
resources can be predefined in moderated publications or custom-
defined as part of the Operational Data Model (ODM) of an agent.
Every AMM resource must be uniquely identifiable. To accomplish
this, an expressive naming scheme is required. The Application
Resource Identifier (ARI) provides this naming scheme. This document
defines the ARI, based on the structure of a Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI), meeting the needs for a concise, typed,
parameterized, and hierarchically organized naming convention.
1.1. Scope
The ARI scheme is based on the structure of a URI [RFC3986] in
accordance with the practices outlined in [RFC8820].
ARIs are designed to support the identification requirements of the
AMM logical schema. As such, this specification will discuss these
requirements to the extent necessary to explain the structure and use
of the ARI syntax.
This specification does not constrain the syntax or structure of any
existing URI (or part thereof). As such, the ARI scheme does not
impede the ownership of any other URI scheme and is therefore clear
of the concerns presented in [RFC7320].
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
This specification does not discuss the manner in which ARIs might be
generated, populated, and used by applications. The operational
utility and configuration of ARIs in a system are described in other
documents associated with DTN management, to include the DTNMA and
AMM specifications.
This specification does not describe the way in which path prefixes
associated with an ARI are standardized, moderated, or otherwise
populated. Path suffixes may be specified where they do not lead to
collision or ambiguity.
This specification does not describe the mechanisms for generating
either standardized or custom ARIs in the context of any given
application, protocol, or network.
1.2. Use of ABNF
This document defines text structure using the Augmented Backus-Naur
Form (ABNF) of [RFC5234]. The entire ABNF structure can be extracted
from the XML version of this document using the XPath expression:
'//sourcecode[@type="abnf"]'
The following initial fragment defines the top-level rules of this
document's ABNF.
start = ari
From the document [RFC3986] the definitions are taken for pchar,
unreserved, pct-encoded. From the document [RFC3339] the definitions
are taken for date-time, full-date, and duration. From the document
[RFC5234] the definitions are taken for bit, hexdig, digit, and char-
val. From the document [RFC8259] the definitions are taken for char
and unescaped.
1.3. Use of CDDL
This document defines Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
structure using the Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) of
[RFC8610]. The entire CDDL structure can be extracted from the XML
version of this document using the XPath expression:
'//sourcecode[@type="cddl"]'
The following initial fragment defines the top-level symbols of this
document's CDDL, which includes the example CBOR content.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
start = ari
; Limited sizes to fit the AMM data model
int32 = (-2147483648 .. 2147483647) .within int
uint32 = uint .le 4294967295
int64 = (-9223372036854775808 .. 9223372036854775807) .within int
uint64 = uint
; Restricted identifier text
id-text = tstr .regexp "!?[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z0-9_\-\.]*"
; Restricted identifier enumerations
id-int = int32
This document does not rely on any CDDL symbol names from other
documents.
1.4. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD 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 terms "Application Data Model", "Application Resource
Identifier", "Operational Data Model", "Externally Defined Data",
"Variable", "Constant", "Control", "Literal", "Macro", "Namespace",
"Operator", "Report", "Report Template", "Rule", "State-Based Rule",
"Table", and "Time-Based Rule" are used without modification from the
definitions provided in [I-D.ietf-dtn-amm].
2. ARI Purpose
ADM resources are referenced in the context of autonomous
applications on an agent. The naming scheme of these resources must
support certain features to inform DTNMA processing in accordance
with the ADM logical schema.
This section defines the set of unique characteristics of the ARI
scheme, the combination of which provides a unique utility for
naming. While certain other naming schemes might incorporate certain
elements, there are no such schemes that both support needed features
and exclude prohibited features.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
2.1. Resource Parameterization
The ADM schema allows for the parameterization of resources to both
reduce the overall data volume communicated between DTN nodes and to
remove the need for any round-trip data negotiation.
Parameterization reduces the communicated data volume when parameters
are used as filter criteria. By associating a parameter with a data
source, data characteristic, or other differentiating attribute, DTN
nodes can locally process parameters to construct the minimal set of
information to either process for local autonomy or report to remote
managers in the network.
Parameterization eliminates the need for round-trip negotiation to
identify where information is located or how it should be accessed.
When parameters define the ability to perform an associative lookup
of a value, the index or location of the data at a particular DTN
node can be resolved locally as part of the local autonomy of the
node and not communicated back to a remote manager.
2.2. Compressible Structure
The ability to encode information in very concise formats enables DTN
communications in a variety of ways. Reduced message sizes increase
the likelihood of message delivery, require fewer processing
resources to secure, store, and forward, and require less resources
to transmit.
While the encoding of an ARI is outside of the scope of this
document, the structure of portions of the ARI syntax lend themselves
to better compressibility. For example, DTN ADM encodings support
the ability to identify resources in as few as 3 bytes by exploiting
the compressible structure of the ARI.
The ARI syntax supports three design elements to aid in the creation
of more concise encodings: enumerated forms of path segments,
relative paths, and patterning.
2.2.1. Enumerated Path Segments
Because the ARI structure includes paths segments with stable
enumerated values, each segment can be represented by either its text
name or its integer enumeration. For human-readability in text form
the text name is preferred, but for binary encoding and for
comparisons the integer form is preferred. It is a translation done
by the entity handling an ARI to switch between preferred
representations (see Section 8); the data model of both forms of the
ARI allows for either.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
2.2.2. Relative Paths
Within an ARI, as defined in Section 3, literal values require no
external context to interpret an so have no use for relative paths.
Object reference values, however, always refer to an object within an
ADM or ODM namespace and this namespace can be used as a base for
resolving URI References as discussed in Section 4.5 and Section 5.5.
2.2.3. Patterning
Patterning in this context refers to the structuring of ARI
information to allow for meaning data selection as a function of
wildcards, regular expressions, and other expressions of a pattern.
Patterns allow for both better compression and fewer ARI
representations by allowing a single ARI pattern to stand-in for a
variety of actual ARIs.
This benefit is best achieved when the structure of the ARI is both
expressive enough to include information that is useful to pattern
match, and regular enough to understand how to create these patterns.
3. ARI Logical Structure
This section describes the information model of the ARI scheme to
inform the discussion of the ARI syntax in Section 4 and Section 5.
At the top-level, an ARI represents one of of the following AMM value
classes defined in later subsections.
Literal values: These are values are those whose value and
identifier are equivalent and are discussed in more detail in
Section 3.2.
Object Reference values: These values refer to an individual object,
possibly with parameters, and are discussed in Section 3.3.
Namespace Reference values: These values refer to an individual
namespace and are discussed in Section 3.4.
3.1. Names, Enumerations, Comparisons, and Canonicalizations
Within the ARI logical model, there are a number of domains in which
items are identified by a combination of text name and integer
enumeration: ADMs, ODMs, literal types, object types, and objects.
In all cases, within a single domain the text name and integer
enumeration SHALL NOT be considered comparable. It is an explicit
activity by any entity processing ARIs to make the translation
between text name and integer enumeration (see Section 8).
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
Text names SHALL be restricted to begin with an alphabetic character
followed by any number of other characters, as defined in the id-text
ABNF symbol. This excludes a large class of characters, including
non-printing characters. When represented in text form, the text
name for ODMs is prefixed with a "!" character to disambiguate it
from an ADM name (see Section 3.3).
For text names, comparison and uniqueness SHALL be based on case-
insensitive logic. The canonical form of text names SHALL be the
lower case representation.
Integer enumerations for ADMs and ODMs SHALL be restricted to a
magnitude less than 2**63 to allow them to fit within a signed 64-bit
storage. The ADM registration in Table 6 reserves high-valued code
points for private and experimental ADMs, while the entire domain of
ODM code points (negative integers) is considered private use.
Integer enumerations for literal types and object types SHALL be
restricted to a magnitude less than 2**31 to allow them to fit within
a signed 32-bit storage. The registrations in Table 2 and Table 3
respectively Integer enumerations for objects (within an ADM or ODM)
SHALL be restricted to a magnitude less than 2**31 to allow them to
fit within a signed 32-bit storage, although negative-value object
enumerations are disallowed.
For integer enumerations, comparison and uniqueness SHALL be based on
numeric values not on encoded forms. The canonical form of integer
enumerations in text form SHALL be the shortest length decimal
representation.
3.2. Literals
Literals represent a special class of ARI which are not associated
with any particular ADM or ODM. A literal has no other name other
than its value, but literals may be explicitly typed in order to
force the receiver to handle it in a specific way.
Because literals will be based on the CBOR data model [RFC8949] and
its extended diagnostic notation, a literal has an intrinsic
representable data type as well as an AMM data type. The CBOR
primitive types are named CDDL symbols as defined in Section 3.3 of
[RFC8610].
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
When converting from AMM literal types, the chosen CBOR type SHALL be
determined by the mapping in Table 1. Additionally, when handling
typed literal ARIs any combination of AMM literal type and CBOR
primitive type not in Table 1 SHALL be considered invalid. This
restriction is enforced by the CDDL defined in Section 5.
Additionally, when handling a literal of AMM type CBOR the well-
formed-ness of the CBOR contained SHOULD be verified before the
literal is treated as valid.
+==================+================+
| AMM Literal Type | Used CBOR Type |
+==================+================+
| NULL | null |
+------------------+----------------+
| BOOL | bool |
+------------------+----------------+
| BYTE | uint |
+------------------+----------------+
| INT | int |
+------------------+----------------+
| UINT | uint |
+------------------+----------------+
| VAST | int |
+------------------+----------------+
| UVAST | uint |
+------------------+----------------+
| REAL32 | float |
+------------------+----------------+
| REAL64 | float |
+------------------+----------------+
| TEXTSTR | tstr |
+------------------+----------------+
| BYTESTR | bstr |
+==================+================+
| Non-primitive types |
+==================+================+
| TP | lit-time |
+------------------+----------------+
| TD | lit-time |
+------------------+----------------+
| LABEL | lit-label |
+------------------+----------------+
| CBOR | lit-cbor |
+==================+================+
| Containers |
+==================+================+
| AC | ari-collection |
+------------------+----------------+
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
| AM | ari-map |
+------------------+----------------+
| TBL | ari-tbl |
+------------------+----------------+
| EXECSET | exec-set |
+------------------+----------------+
| RPTSET | rpt-set |
+------------------+----------------+
Table 1: AMM Literal Types to
CBOR Types
Although the text forms defined in Section 4.2.1 allow both human-
friendly representations (derived from [RFC3339] encodings) and
direct numeric representation, the internal form of TP and TD values
SHALL be as a decimal fraction with at least nanosecond precision.
For the CBOR type, an implementation MAY perform CBOR decoding to
validate that the byte string value is in fact well-formed CBOR but
SHALL preserve the original byte string when transforming between the
internal form and different encoded forms.
3.3. Object References
Object references are composed of two parts: object identifier and
optional parameters. The object identifier can be dereferenced to a
specific object in the ADM/ODM, while the parameters provide
additional information for certain types of object and only when
allowed by the parameter "signature" from the ADM/ODM.
The object identifier itself contains these components, described in
the following subsections: organization ID, model ID with optional
model revision, object type, and object ID. When encoded in text
form (see Section 4), the identifier components correspond to the URI
authority and path segments.
Each identifier component has two possible forms; one more human-
friendly and one more compressible. Values can only be converted
between forms based on a local registry of data models. There is
nothing intrinsic in either form which relates to the other form
(_i.e._, each name and enumeration value is arbitrary).
Text name form: This form corresponds with a human-readable
identifier for the component. A text form component SHALL contain
only URI path segment characters (pchar) representing valid UTF-8
text in accordance with [RFC3629]. This requirement applies to
text components generally, specific component uses will restrict
this valid domain further.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
There is no intrinsic limit to the length of a text form
component. Implementations are RECOMMENDED to not impose an
arbitrary small limit to text form components.
Integer enumeration form: This form corresponds with a compressible
value suitable for on-the-wire encoding between Manager and Agent.
Sorting and matching integer components is also faster than text
form. Every integer form component SHALL be small enough to be
represented as a 32-bit signed integer.
An Agent implementation MAY be incapable of handling text form object
identifier components, and this needs to be communicated to any
associated Manager prior to encoding any ARIs for that Agent.
The organization ID, model ID, and model revision together are be
referred to as a "namespace". ADM resources exist within namespaces
to eliminate the possibility of a conflicting resource name, aid in
the application of patterns, and improve the compressibility of the
ARI. Namespaces SHALL NOT be used as a security mechanism to manage
access. An Agent or Manager SHALL NOT infer security information or
access control based solely on namespace information in an ARI.
3.3.1. Organization ID
Organization IDs are used to segment the full domain of object
identifiers into separately managed logical segments. Some
organizations will be well known and registered with IANA, others
will choose to make use of the private use reserved range for
enumerations and names. This document allocates well known
organization IDs in Section 11.2 for the IETF and IANA, as well as
for example models.
Well Known organizations: A well known organization ID SHALL be
registered with IANA. All text form well known organization IDs
SHALL match the id-text rule of Section 4.1 and not begin with the
bang character "!". All integer form well known organization IDs
SHALL be non-negative.
Private Use organizations: A private use organization ID need not be
registered with IANA. All text form private use organization IDs
SHALL match the id-text rule and begin with the bang character
"!". All integer form private use organization IDs SHALL be
negative.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
3.3.2. Model ID
Model IDs are used to segment a full organizational domain into
individual object namespaces. There are two types of model IDs
corresponding to the two types of namespaces described in the AMM
Section 3.1.2 of [I-D.ietf-dtn-amm] as follows.
ADM namespace: A model ID for an ADM namespace is unique within an
organization and, except for private or experimental use, SHOULD
be registered with IANA (see Section 11.2) or an organization-
specific authority. All text form ADM model IDs SHALL match the
id-text rule of Section 4.1and not begin with the bang character
"!". All integer form ADM model IDs SHALL be non-negative.
ODM namespace: A model IDs for an ODM namespace does not have
universal registration and SHALL be considered to be private use.
It is expected that runtime ODM namespaces will be allocated and
managed per-user and per-mission. All text form ODM model IDs
SHALL match the id-text rule and begin with the bang character
"!". All integer form ODM model IDs SHALL be negative.
3.3.3. Model Revision
A single ADM is allowed and expected to change over time, and
references to objects within an ADM can include an identifier for a
specific ADM revision. Each released revision of an ADM SHALL be
identified by a specific revision date in the Gregorian calendar. An
ARI referencing an object within an ADM MAY contain a specific model
revision.
Because an ODM is expected to be dynamic and modified during Agent
runtime, there is no meaning to a revision on an ODM. An ARI
referencing an object within an ODM SHALL NOT contain a model
revision.
The internal representation of revision dates is an implementation
matter, but the encoded representations defined in this document
include both text and integer form consistent with external standards
(cited by the encodings of Section 4 and Section 5). Note that
because ARI structure includes some recursion (_e.g._, object
reference parameters and container members are themselves ARIs), it
is possible to have a model revision present at any depth of a
complex ARI.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
Because an Agent is able to implement only a single revision of any
model, the model revision data SHALL NOT be present in an ARI being
communicated to or from an Agent. If an Agent receives an ARI
containing model revision information and that is inconsistent with
the revision implemented by the Agent, it is an implementation matter
for how to detect and handle the inconsistency.
The reason for including revision information in an ARI is to allow a
Manager to keep that information intrinsic to the rest of the ARI in
its own bookkeeping. A Manager SHALL recursively remove any model
revision(s) before transmitting an ARI to an Agent, which satisfies
the earlier paragraph. A Manager MAY add model revision(s) to an ARI
received from an Agent to help its own data bookkeeping.
3.3.4. Object Type
Due to the flat structure of an ADM, as defined in Section 4 of
[I-D.ietf-dtn-amm], all managed objects are of a specific and
unchanging type from a set of available managed object types. The
preferred form for object types in text ARIs is the text name, while
in binary form it is the integer enumeration (see Section 8). Both
of these forms have values registered with IANA in Table 3.
The following subsection explains the form of those object
identifiers.
3.3.5. Object ID
Within a single ADM or ODM namespace and a single object type, all
managed objects have similar characteristics and all objects are
identified by a single text name or integer enumeration. The
preferred form for object names in text ARIs is the text name, while
in binary form it is the integer enumeration.
Any ADM-defined object will have both name and enumeration, while a
ODM-defined object can have either but not both. Conversion between
the two forms requires access to the original ADM, and its specific
revision, in which the object was defined. All text form object
names SHALL match the id-text rule of Section 4.1..
3.3.6. Parameters
The ADM logical schema allows many object types to be parameterized
when defined in the context of an application or a protocol.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
If two instances of an ADM resource have the same namespace and same
object type and object name but have different parameter values, then
those instances are unique and the ARIs for those instances SHALL
also be unique. Therefore, parameters are considered part of the ARI
syntax.
The ADM logical schema defines specialized uses for the term
"parameter" to disambiguate each purpose, as defined below.
Formal Parameters:
Formal parameters define the type, name, and order of the
information that customizes an ARI. They represent the unchanging
"signature" of the parameterized object. Because ARIs represent a
_use_ of an object and not its definition, formal parameters are
not present in an ARI and instead are part of an object model.
Given Parameters:
Given parameters represent the data values used to distinguish
different instances of a parameterized object. A given parameter
is an AMM value and is represented by an ARI within the context of
a parameter list (AC) or parameter map (AM). Because of necessary
normalizing (of type and default value) based on formal
parameters, multiple given parameters can correspond with the same
meaning (see Actual Parameters below).
Additionally, there are two ways in which the value of a given
parameter can be specified: parameter-by-value and parameter-by-
name.
Parameter-By-Value: This method involves directly supplying the
value as part of the actual parameter. It is the default
method for supplying values.
Parameter-By-Name: This method involves specifying the name of an
other parameter and using that other parameter's value as a
substitute for the value of this parameter. This method is
useful when a parameterized ARI is produced by an AMM object
which itself is parameterized. The original ARI parameters
contain literal ARIs with LABEL type, and when the value is
produced based on input parameters the substitution is made.
In this way, an actual parameter can be "flowed down" to
produced values at runtime.
Actual Parameters:
Actual parameters represent a normalized set of values taken from
a set of given parameters and normalized using a set of
corresponding formal parameters. An actual parameter is an AMM
value and is represented by an ARI.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
Because normalizing can cause a given parameter to change type (in
order to conform to a formal parameter type) or take on a default
value (when not present in the given parameters), a single set of
actual parameters can correspond with multiple options for given
parameters.
3.4. Namespace References
A namespace reference is composed of a single part, the namespace ID,
which is used to refer to an entire ADM or ODM. It is treated as a
separate class of ARI in order to separate it from the additional
required parts of an Object Reference (object type and object ID).
The purpose of a namespace reference is to give an ARI value to the
whole namespace separately from any of its contained objects.
4. ARI Text Form
This section defines how the data model explained in Section 3 is
encoded as text conforming to the URI syntax of [RFC3986] with value
encoding heavily influenced by the CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation
(EDN). One significant difference from the ARI encoding from EDN is
that ARI identifiers and literal enumerated values are handled in a
case-insensitive way, while EDN specifies enumerated values (such as
"undefined" and "Infinity" as case sensitive).
When used within the context of a base ARI, the relative reference
form of Section 4.5 can be used. In all other cases an ARI must be
an absolute-path form and contain a scheme.
While this text description is normative, the ABNF schema in this
section provides a more explicit and machine-parsable text schema.
The scheme name of the ARI is "ari" and the scheme-specific part of
the ARI follows one of the two forms corresponding to the literal-
value ARI and the object reference ARI.
ari = [ARIPREFIX] ari-ssp
ari-ssp = lit-ssp-struct / objref-ssp-struct / nsref-ssp-struct
; restricted to only a subset of "ari" symbol
lit-ari = [ARIPREFIX] lit-ssp-struct
objref-ari = [ARIPREFIX] objref-ssp-struct
ARIPREFIX = "ari:"
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
4.1. URIs and Percent Encoding
Due to the intrinsic structure of the URI, on which the text form of
ARI is based, there are limitations on the syntax available to the
scheme-specific-part [RFC7595]. One of these limitations is that
each path segment can contain only characters in the pchar ABNF
symbol defined in [RFC3986]. For most parts of the ARI this
restriction is upheld by the values themselves: ADM/ODM names,
literal and object type names, and object names have a limited
character set all within the rule val-seg. For literals and nested
parameters though, the percent encoding of Section 2.4 of [RFC3986]
is needed.
The following rule val-seg is an allowed superset of all path segment
patterns, which includes ARI-specific control characters in val-
delims. These control characters SHOULD NOT be percent encoded when
encoding an ARI. ARI decoders SHALL handle percent encoded forms of
all segment contents (_i.e._, each portion of an ARI needs to be
percent decoded exactly once).
; A subset of RFC 3986 segment-nz and pchar symbols which matches all
; identifiers, primitive values, and typed-literal values
val-seg = 1*( unreserved / pct-encoded / val-delims)
val-delims = "!" / "'" / "+" / ":" / "@"
; A text name must start with an alphabetic character or underscore
; with an optional bang prefix
id-text = ["!"] (ALPHA / "_") *(ALPHA / DIGIT / "_" / "-" / ".")
; An integer enum must contain only digits with no zero padding
; The value must also be 32-bit signed range,
; but that is not enforced by this ABNF
id-int = ["-"] nopad-number
nopad-number = "0" / non-zero-number
non-zero-number = %x31-39 *DIGIT
In the ARI text examples in this document the URIs have been percent-
decoded for clarity, as might be done in an ARI display and editing
tool. But the actual encoded form of the human-friendly ARI
ari:"text" is ari:%22text%22. Outside of literals, the safe
characters which are not be percent-encoded are the structural
delimiters /()=;, used for parameters and ARI collections.
| Even with the allowed character set of val-seg there are still
| some literal value control characters that do not fit within
| the URI pchar set and which need to be percent-encoded,
| specifically the double-quote character " for text strings.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
One other aspect of convenience for human editing of text-form ARIs
is linear white space. The current ABNF pattern, staying within the
URI pattern, do not allow for whitespace to separate list items or
otherwise. A human editing an ARI could find it convenient to
include whitespace following commas between list items, or to
separate large lists across lines. Any tool that allows this kind of
convenience of editing SHALL collapse any white space within a single
ARI before encoding its contents.
4.2. Literals
Based on the structure of Section 3.2, the text form of the literal
ARI contains only a URI path with an optional AMM literal type. A
literal has no concept of a namespace or context, so the path is
always absolute. When the path has two segments, the first is the
AMM literal type and the second is the encoded literal value. When
the path has a single segment it is the encoded literal value. As a
shortcut, an ARI with only a single path segment is necessarily an
untyped literal so the leading slash is elided.
The text form of literal ARI has two layers of coding: the URI path
structure and the type-specific value coding. These are
distinguished below in the ABNF by the lit-ssp-struct symbol being
for the general path structure and type-specific coding defined in
Section 4.2.1.
lit-ssp-struct = lit-container / lit-typeval-struct
/ lit-notype-struct
; More complex text for non-primitive values
lit-typeval-struct = "/" lit-type "/" val-seg
; Type is restricted to valid literal types, within the "val-seg" set
lit-type = id-text / id-int
; Containers use different structure than lit-typeval-struct
; because of rule recursion
lit-container = lit-ac / lit-am / lit-tbl / lit-execset / lit-rptset
lit-ac = "/" ("AC" / "17") "/" ari-collection
lit-am = "/" ("AM" / "18") "/" ari-map
lit-tbl = "/" ("TBL" / "19") "/" ari-tbl
lit-execset = "/" ("EXECSET" / "20") "/" exec-set
lit-rptset = "/" ("RPTSET" / "21") "/" rpt-set
; The untyped value is a subset of the "lit-notype" symbol
lit-notype-struct = val-seg
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
4.2.1. Typed Literal Values
The definition in this section is a specialization of the lit-
typeval-struct structure for specific literal types.
An ARI encoder or decoder SHALL handle both text name and integer
enumeration forms of the lit-type symbol. When present and able to
be looked up, the literal type SHOULD be a text name.
The text form of typed values SHALL be one of the following, based on
the associated lit-type value in the ARI:
NULL:
This type contains only the single the fixed value "null". The
canonical form of this value SHALL be lower case. Decoding of
values in this type SHALL be case-insensitive.
null = "null"
BOOL:
This type contains the two fixed values "true" and "false". The
canonical form of these values SHALL be lower case. Decoding of
values in this type SHALL be case-insensitive.
bool = "true" / "false"
BYTE, INT, UINT, VAST, or UVAST:
The integer types, signed or unsigned, match the following integer
ABNF symbol. Each specific type will limit the domain of valid
values within this more general encoding.
integer = optsign uinteger
optsign = ["+" / "-"]
; Just the numeric digits
uinteger = uint-dec / uint-bin / uint-hex
uint-dec = 1*DIGIT
uint-bin = "0b" 1*BIT
uint-hex = "0x" 1*HEXDIG
REAL32 or REAL64:
The floating-point types match the following float ABNF symbol,
which includes a hexadecimal form that avoids decimal conversion
of the underlying value. All of these forms conform to the text
representations defined in Section 5.12 of [IEEE.754-2019] for
binary16, binary32, or binary64 values.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
float = float-exp / float-dec / float-hex / float-inf / float-nan
; Decimal exponential corresponds with C99 '%e' format
float-exp = optsign 1*DIGIT ["." 1*DIGIT] "e" optsign 1*DIGIT
; Decimal fraction corresponds with C99 '%f' format
float-dec = optsign 1*DIGIT "." *DIGIT
; Hexadecimal exponential corresponds with C99 '%a' format
float-hex = optsign "0x" 1*HEXDIG "." *HEXDIG
; Non-finite enumerated values
float-inf = optsign "Infinity"
float-nan = "NaN"
["p" optsign 1*DIGIT]
The canonical form of alphabetic characters within float values
SHALL be the form in which the ABNF rules are defined above.
Decoding of values in this type SHALL be case-insensitive.
TEXTSTR:
The text string type matches the following tstr ABNF symbol after
percent-decoding, which is consistent with the CBOR EDN
definition. As an alternative, if the text value matches the id-
text character set it can be encoded directly without quoting.
tstr = tstr-quoted / id-text
; double-quoted and escaped text logic from Section 7 of RFC 8259
tstr-quoted = DQUOTE *char DQUOTE
DQUOTE = %x22
BYTESTR:
The byte string type matches the following bstr ABNF symbol after
percent-decoding, which is consistent with the CBOR EDN definition
restricted to only utf8, base16, and base64url encodings.
bstr = bstr-utf8 / bstr-b16 / bstr-b64
; Escaped text logic from Section 7 of RFC 8259
bstr-utf8 = SQUOTE *char SQUOTE
; Encoding of Section 8 of RFC 4648
bstr-b16 = "h" SQUOTE *(2HEXDIG) SQUOTE
; Encoding of Section 5 of RFC 4648
bstr-b64 = "b64" SQUOTE *(ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "_") *EQ SQUOTE
SQUOTE = %x27
EQ = %x3D
The non-prefixed form of byte string SHALL only be used if the
value contains only UTF-8 text in accordance with [RFC3629]. When
using the "h" prefix the base16 encoding from Section 8 of
[RFC4648] SHALL be used. When using the "b64" prefix only the
base64url encoding from Section 5 of [RFC4648] SHALL be used as
this avoids unnecessary percent encodings.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
TP:
This type uses either the date-time ABNF symbol of Appendix A of
[RFC3339] always in the "Z" time-offset, or as a decimal
representation of the relative time from the DTN Epoch.
tp-val = date-time / float-dec / integer
When the human-friendly text form of [RFC3339]is used, the date
and time SHALL both be present along with the "Z" time-offset.
The date component separator "-" and time component separator ":"
are optional and MAY be omitted by an encoder. When separators
are omitted, the text need not be percent encoded.
TD:
This type uses either the duration ABNF symbol of Appendix A of
[RFC3339] with a positive or negative sign prefix, or as a decimal
representation of the relative time value.
td-val = duration / float-dec / integer
When the human-friendly text form of [RFC3339]is used, the largest
duration component allowed SHALL be the day ("D"). No year,
month, or week components are allowed to be present. This text is
unquoted and due to the constraints on the value need not be
percent encoded.
Additionally, a zero-value duration is valid to be present in the
human-friendly form. The zero-value duration SHOULD contain only
a seconds ("S") component with no fractional part, _i.e._, PT0S.
LABEL:
This type uses the following lit-label ABNF symbol from this
document. This text is unquoted and due to the constraints on the
value need not be percent encoded.
lit-label = id-text / id-int
CBOR:
This type uses the following emb-cbor ABNF symbol for its value.
The value encoding is the raw byte string of the embedded CBOR
item.
emb-cbor = bstr
AC:
This type uses the following ari-collection ABNF symbol for its
value. Each item of the collection is an already-percent-encoded
text-form ARI.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
; A comma-separated list of any form of ARI with enclosure
ari-collection = "(" [ari-collection-list] ")"
ari-collection-list = ari *("," ari)
AM:
This type uses the following ari-map ABNF symbol for its value.
Each key of the map is an already-percent-encoded text-form
literal-value ARI. Each value of the map is an already-percent-
encoded text-form ARI.
; A comma-separate list of pairs, each delimited by equal-sign
; with literal-only keys
ari-map = "(" [ari-map-list] ")"
ari-map-list = ari-map-pair *("," ari-map-pair)
ari-map-pair = lit-notype "=" ari
TBL:
This type uses the following ari-tbl ABNF symbol for its value.
The value is prefixed by the number of columns in the table,
followed by an AC representing each separate row in the table.
Each item of the table is an already-percent-encoded text-form
ARI.
ari-tbl = "c=" nopad-number ";" *ari-collection
| Note that although the TBL uses the same syntax as AC for
| encoding each row, the value itself is not necessarily
| internally represented by a sequence of AC values.
EXECSET:
This type uses the following exec-set ABNF symbol for its value.
exec-set = "n=" exec-nonce ";" exec-targets
exec-nonce = null / uinteger / bstr
exec-targets = ari-collection
The value is prefixed by the optional nonce value for the
associated execution(s), followed by an AC representing each item
to be executed (either a CTRL reference, MAC-producing reference,
or MAC value literal). When using the integer type, the nonce
value SHALL be restricted to only non-negative integers. Each
item of the targets is an already-percent-encoded text-form ARI.
| Note that although the EXECSET uses the same syntax as AC
| for encoding each row, the value itself is not necessarily
| internally represented by an AC.
RPTSET:
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
This type uses the following rpt-set ABNF symbol for its value.
The value consists of the optional nonce value for the associated
execution(s), a reference absolute time for all contained reports,
and the list of contained reports. Each contained report consists
of a relative creation time for the report (relative to the RPTSET
reference time), a reference to the source of the report, and an
AC representing each item in the report. Each item of a report is
an already-percent-encoded text-form ARI, as is the source
reference. The nonce and timestamps are all literal values
constrained to specific value types.
rpt-set = "n=" exec-nonce ";r=" lit-ari ";" *rpt-container
rpt-container = "(t=" lit-ari ";s=" objref-ari ";" rpt-items ")"
rpt-items = ari-collection
| Note that although the report container uses the same syntax
| as AC for encoding each row, the items itself is not
| necessarily internally represented by an AC.
Some examples of typed literal values are below. The represented
values for TP, TD, and CBOR types are the same just with different
text representations.
ari:/BOOL/true
ari:/UINT/10
ari:/VAST/10
ari:/LABEL/name
ari:/TP/20230102T030405Z
ari:/TP/2023-01-02T03:04:05Z
ari:/TP/725943845
ari:/TD/+PT1H
ari:/TD/3600
ari:/CBOR/h'0a'
ari:/CBOR/%3C%3C10%3E%3E
These are typed container values with text form for AC and AM lists:
ari:/AC/(1,2,3)
ari:/AM/(1=2,2=4,3=9)
ari:/TBL/c=3;(1,true,%22A%22)(2,false,%22B%22)
And these are a pair of EXECSET and RPTSET with identical nonce
value:
ari:/EXECSET/n=1234;(//example/adm-a/CTRL/dothing,//example/adm-a/CONST/amacro)
ari:/RPTSET/n=1234;r=/TP/20230102T030405Z;(t=/TD/PT0S;s=//example/adm-a/CTRL/dothing;(null))(t=/TD/PT5S;s=//example/adm-a/CONST/amacro;(null))
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
4.2.2. Untyped Literal Values
The definition in this section is a specialization of the lit-notype-
struct structure for specific primitive types.
When untyped, the literal value SHALL be one of the primitive types
named by the lit-notype ABNF symbol below. The separate value
encodings use symbols from Section 4.2.1.
lit-notype = undefined / null / bool / float / integer / tstr / bstr
undefined = "undefined"
The undefined value is only valid as an untyped literal, it has no
associated built-in type. The canonical form of the undefined value
SHALL be lower case. Decoding of the undefined value SHALL be case-
insensitive.
| The order of this symbol sequence is significant because the
| unquoted tstr must be matched after the enumerated types of
| undefined, null, and bool.
Some example of untyped literals are below.
ari:undefined
ari:true
ari:1.1
ari:1.1e+06
ari:0x1.4p+3
ari:10
ari:0xA
ari:0b1010
ari:-0x10
ari:'bytes'
ari:h'6279746573'
ari:b64'Ynl0ZXM'
ari:%22text%22
ari:%22hi%5Cu1234%22
ari:%22hi%5CuD834%5CuDD1E%22
4.2.3. Preferred Encodings
Several of the literal types defined in Section 4.2.1 allow the same
AMM value to be represented by multiple logically equivalent
encodings. Because these encodings are not equivalent in represented
text size or processing needs it is useful for an ARI processor to
allow a user to determine preferred encodings when processing text-
form ARIs.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
Integer values: These options correspond to the BYTE, INT, UINT,
VAST, and UVAST types and untyped int values. These values can be
encoded as either base-2, base-10, or base-16. In uses which are
more resource constrained and less human-facing a processor MAY
encode integers only in base-16.
Floating point values: These options correspond to the REAL32 and
REAL64 types and untyped float values. These values can be
encoded as either decimal fraction, decimal exponential, or
hexadecimal exponential. In uses which are more resource
constrained and less human-facing a processor MAY encode floats
only as hexadecimal.
Byte string values: These options correspond to the BYTESTR and CBOR
types and untyped bstr values. These values can be encoded as
either raw bytes, base16, or base64url. In uses which are more
resource constrained and less human-facing a processor MAY encode
byte strings only as base16.
Time values: These options correspond to the TP and TD types. These
values can be encoded as either delimited text, non-delimited
text, or decimal fraction. In uses which are more resource
constrained and less human-facing a processor MAY encode time
values only as decimal fraction.
4.3. Object References
Based on the structure of Section 3.3, the text form of the object
reference ARI is a URI with an authority, corresponding to the
namespace-id, and two path segments, corresponding to the object-type
and object-id. Those components (excluding parameters as defined
below) are referred to as the object identifier.
An ARI encoder or decoder SHALL handle both text name and integer
enumeration forms of the namespace-id, object-type, and object-id.
The final segment containing the object-id MAY contain parameters
enclosed by parentheses "(" and ")". There is no semantic
distinction between the absence of parameters and the empty parameter
list. The contents of the parameters SHALL be interpreted as a
literal AC or AM in accordance with Section 4.2.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
The parameters as a whole SHALL be the percent encoded form of the
constituent ARIs, excluding the structural delimiters /(),=.
Implementations are advised to be careful about the percent encoded
vs. decoded cases of each of the nested ARIs within parameters to
avoid duplicate encoding or decoding. It is recommended to dissect
the parameters and ARI collections in their encoded form first, and
then to dissect and percent decode each separately and recursively.
The object reference ARI has the following ABNF definition.
objref-ssp-struct = obj-ident [paramlist]
; The object identifier can be used separately from parameters
obj-ident = ns-part "/" obj-type "/" obj-id
; Parameters are either AC or AM
paramlist = ari-collection / ari-map
; Absolute or relative namespace
ns-part = ("//" org-id "/" model-seg) / ("../" model-seg) / "."
; Organization ID, within the "val-seg" set
org-id = id-text / id-int
; Model ID and optional revision, within the "val-seg" set
model-seg = model-id ["@" model-rev]
model-id = id-text / id-int
model-rev = full-date ; from RFC 3339
; Type is restricted to valid object types, within the "val-seg" set
obj-type = id-text / id-int
; Object ID, within the "val-seg" set
obj-id = id-text / id-int
Some examples of object reference values are below.
ari://example/adm-a@2024-06-25/EDD/someobj
ari://example/adm-a/EDD/someobj
ari://example/adm-a/CTRL/otherobj(true,3)
ari://example/adm-a/CTRL/otherobj(%22a%20param%22,/UINT/10)
ari://65535/1/-1/0
ari://example/!odm-b/VAR/counter
ari://65535/-20/-11/84
4.4. Namespace References
Based on the structure of Section 3.4, the text form of the namespace
reference ARI is a URI with one path segment, corresponding to the
namespace ID, followed by a path separator. The path separator is
necessary to distinguish this from a untyped literal value.
The namespace reference ARI has the following ABNF definition.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
nsref-ssp-struct = "//" org-id "/" model-seg "/"
Some examples of namespace reference values are below.
ari://example/adm-a@2024-06-25/
ari://example/adm-a/
ari://65535/1/
ari://example/!odm-b/
ari://65535/-20/
4.5. Relative References
The text form of ARI can contain a relative reference, as defined in
Section 4.1 of [RFC3986], only for the specific case of eliding the
namespace of Object Reference values. In this case, its object
identifier SHALL start with a relative path segment "." or ".." (see
the ns-part rule of Section 4.3). In accordance with [RFC3986] a
relative reference SHALL NOT contain a scheme part.
Examples of text name and integer enumerated identifiers in a
relative reference are below.
./CTRL/do_thing
./CTRL/otherobj(%22a%20param%22,/UINT/10)
./-2/30
Relative reference resolution is discussed in Section 6.2.
5. ARI Binary Form
This section defines how the data model explained in Section 3 is
encoded as a binary sequence conforming to the CBOR syntax of
[RFC8949]. Within this section the term "item" is used to mean the
CBOR-decoded data item which follows the logical model of CDDL
[RFC8610].
The binary form of the URI is intended to be used for machine-to-
machine interchange so it is missing some of the human-friendly
shortcut features of the ARI text form from Section 4. It still
follows the same logical data model so it has a one-for-one
representation of all of the styles of text-form ARI.
While this text description is normative, the CDDL schema in this
section provides a more explicit and machine-parsable binary schema.
ari = lit-ari / objref-ari
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
5.1. Intermediate CBOR
The CBOR item form is used as an intermediate encoding between the
ARI data and the ultimate binary encoding. When decoding a binary
form ARI, the CBOR must be both "well-formed" according to [RFC8949]
and "valid" according to the CDDL model of this specification.
Implementations are encouraged, but not required, to use a streaming
form of CBOR encoder/decoder to reduce memory consumption of an ARI
handler. For simple implementations or diagnostic purposes, a two
stage conversion between ARI--CBOR and CBOR--binary can be more
easily understood and tested.
5.2. Literals
Based on the structure of Section 3.2, the binary form of the literal
ARI contains a data item along with an optional AMM literal type
identifier. In order to keep the encoding as short as possible, the
untyped literal is encoded as the simple value itself. Because the
typed literal and the object reference forms uses CBOR array framing,
this framing is used to disambiguate from the pure-value encoding of
the lit-notype CDDL symbol.
When present, the literal type SHALL be an integer enumeration. When
typed, the decoded literal value SHALL be a valid CBOR item
conforming to the AMM literal type definition of the $lit-typeval
CDDL socket. When untyped, the decoded literal value SHALL be one of
the primitive types named by the lit-notype CDDL symbol.
The literal ARI, both typed and untyped, has the following CDDL
definition.
lit-ari = lit-typeval / lit-notype
; undefined value is only allowed as non-typed literal
lit-notype = undefined / null / bool / int / float / tstr / bstr
lit-typeval = $lit-typeval .within lit-typeval-struct
lit-typeval-struct = [
lit-type: lit-type-id,
lit-value: any
]
lit-type-id = (int32 .ge 0)
; IANA-assigned literal types
$lit-typeval /= [0, null]
$lit-typeval /= [1, bool]
$lit-typeval /= [2, uint .size 1] ; 1-byte
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
$lit-typeval /= [4, int32] ; 4-byte
$lit-typeval /= [5, uint32] ; 4-byte
$lit-typeval /= [6, int64] ; 8-byte
$lit-typeval /= [7, uint64] ; 8-byte
$lit-typeval /= [8, float16 / float32]
$lit-typeval /= [9, float16 / float32 / float64]
$lit-typeval /= [10, tstr]
$lit-typeval /= [11, bstr]
; Absolute timestamp as seconds from DTN Epoch
$lit-typeval /= [12, lit-time]
; Relative time interval as seconds
$lit-typeval /= [13, lit-time]
lit-time = int / time-fraction
; Same structure as tag #4 "decimal fraction" but limited in domain
time-fraction = [
exp: (-9 .. 9) .within int,
mantissa: int,
]
; Parameter label
$lit-typeval /= [14, lit-label]
lit-label = id-int / id-text
; Embedded CBOR item
$lit-typeval /= [15, lit-cbor]
lit-cbor = bstr .cbor any
; Literal type ID value
$lit-typeval /= [16, lit-type-id]
; Ordered list of ARIs
$lit-typeval /= [17, ari-collection]
ari-collection = [*ari]
; Map from untyped literal to ARI
$lit-typeval /= [18, ari-map]
ari-map-key = lit-notype
ari-map = {*ari-map-key => ari}
; Table of ARIs
$lit-typeval /= [19, ari-tbl]
ari-tbl = [
ncol: uint, ; Number of columns in the table
*ari ; All rows are concatenated in the single array
]
; Execution-Set
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
$lit-typeval /= lit-execset
lit-execset = [20, exec-set]
exec-set = [
nonce,
exec-targets,
]
nonce = null / uint / bstr
exec-targets = (*objref-ari)
; Reporting-Set
$lit-typeval /= lit-rptset
lit-rptset = [21, rpt-set]
rpt-set = [
nonce,
ref-time: lit-time, ; Interpreted as a TP absolute time
*rpt-container
]
rpt-container = [
rel-time: lit-time ; Interpreted as a TD relative to ref-time
source: objref-ari,
rpt-items
]
rpt-items = (*ari)
Some example of the forms for a literal are below. These first are
untyped primitive values:
true
"text"
10
And these are typed values:
[4, 10]
[15, <<10>>]
5.3. Object References
Based on the structure of Section 3.3, the binary form of the object
reference ARI is a CBOR-encoded item. An ARI SHALL be encoded as a
CBOR array with between four and six items. The first items
correspond to the organization ID, model ID, optional model revision,
object type, and object ID. Those items together are referred to as
the object identifier. The optional last item of the array is the
parameter list.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
Each of the organization ID, model ID, object type, and object ID of
an object identifier SHALL be represented as either text name id-text
or integer enumeration id-int form or the null value to indicate its
absence.
The model revision SHALL be represented as a CBOR-tagged text date in
accordance with [RFC8943]. The presence or absence of the model
revision can be detected by decoders due to its mandatory CBOR tag
1004; the following item (object type) is always untagged. ARI
processors MAY decompose and integer-decode the model revision date
in order to optimize storage or comparisons. For example, when
matching ADM revisions during an ARI dereference activity per
Section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-dtn-amm]. Any model revision date handling
SHALL NOT affect the text representation if re-encoding the ARI.
Because the date format does not allow variation of text encoding,
this is easily satisfied and there is no need to preserve the
original text value if decoding.
When present, the parameters SHALL be either the ari-collection or
ari-map structure. In other words, just the value-portion of the AC
or AM typed literal because no other disambiguation needs to be made
for the parameter type.
The object reference ARI has the following CDDL definition.
; Type-agnostic structure of object reference
objref-ari = $objref-ari .within objref-ari-struct
objref-ari-struct = [
org-id / null,
(
model-id,
? model-rev
) / null,
obj-type-id / null,
obj-id / null,
?params
]
; Identifier for a single object
obj-ident<obj-type> = (
org-id,
model-id,
? model-rev,
obj-type,
obj-id,
)
org-id = id-int / id-text
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
model-id = id-int / id-text
model-rev = #6.1004(tstr) ; from RFC 8943
obj-type-id = (id-int .lt 0) / id-text
obj-id = (id-int .ge 0) / id-text
params = ari-collection / ari-map
; Generic usable for restricting objref-ari by type
objref-type<obj-type> = [
obj-ident<obj-type>,
?params
]
; IANA-assigned object types
IDENT = -1
$objref-ari /= objref-type<IDENT>
CONST = -2
$objref-ari /= objref-type<CONST>
CTRL = -3
$objref-ari /= objref-type<CTRL>
EDD = -4
$objref-ari /= objref-type<EDD>
OPER = -6
$objref-ari /= objref-type<OPER>
SBR = -8
$objref-ari /= objref-type<SBR>
TBR = -10
$objref-ari /= objref-type<TBR>
VAR = -11
$objref-ari /= objref-type<VAR>
TYPEDEF = -12
$objref-ari /= objref-type<TYPEDEF>
An example object reference without parameters is:
[65535, 1, -1, 0]
Another example object reference with parameters is:
[65535, 1, -2, 3, ["a param", [4, 10]]]
5.4. Namespace References
Based on the structure of Section 3.4, the binary form of the
namespace reference ARI is a specialization of the object reference
encoding as defined in the following CDDL.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
nsref-ari = [
org-id,
model-id,
? model-rev,
null,
null
] .within objref-ari-struct
Some examples of namespace reference values are below, both with text
form and integer form identifiers. For equivalence, model "adm-a"
has enumeration 1 and "!odm-b" has enumeration -20.
["example", "adm-a", 1004("2024-06-25"), null, null]
[65535, 1, 100(19899), null, null]
["example", "adm-a", null, null]
[65535, 1, null, null]
["example", "!odm-b", null, null]
[65535, -20, null, null]
5.5. Relative References
The binary form of ARI includes the ability to encode a relative
reference only for the specific case of eliding the namespace of
Object Reference values. In this case the organization ID, and
possibly model ID, portions of an object identifier are replaced by
the CBOR value null as defined below. If the model ID is absent,
there SHALL NOT be a model revision present.
These restrictions are captured in the following CDDL.
ariref-ari = [
null,
(
model-id,
? model-rev,
) / null,
obj-type-id,
obj-id,
?params
] .within objref-ari-struct
Examples of text name and integer enumerated identifiers in a
relative reference are below.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
These example corresponds to the URI references ./CTRL/do_thing and
./-2/30 respectively.
[null, null, "CTRL", "do_thing"]
[null, null, -2, 30]
These example corresponds to the URI references ../!odm10/var/
threshold and ../-10/-11/2 respectively.
[null, "!odm10", "var", "threshold"]
[null, -10, -11, 2]
Relative reference resolution is discussed in Section 6.2.
6. Processing Activities
Separate from the forms of encoding the ARI information, there are
some ARI-specific processing activities that can be used to transform
one ARI value into another without changing the higher-level meaning
of the value. Both of these activities require an external context
to work in a meaningful way.
6.1. ID Segment Translation
Because both the text and binary form of the ARI allow ID segments to
contain either a text name or an integer enumeration, ARIs can be
translated one-for-one between the two forms without loss.
When translating literal types into text form and code point lookup
tables are available, the literal type SHOULD be converted to its
text name. When translating literal types from text form and code
point lookup tables are available, the literal type SHOULD be
converted from its text name. The conversion between AMM literal
type name and enumeration requires a lookup table based on the
registrations in Table 2.
When translating object references into text form and code point
lookup tables are available, any enumerated item SHOULD be converted
to its text name. When translating object references from text form
and code point lookup tables are available, any enumerated item
SHOULD be converted from its text name. The conversion between AMM
object-type name and enumeration requires a lookup table based on the
registrations in Table 3. The conversion between name and
enumeration for either namespace-id or object-id require lookup
tables based on ADMs and ODMs known to the processing entity.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
6.2. Relative Reference Resolution
Resolving an ARI containing a relative reference (where an object
reference namespace is elided) SHALL consist of replacing the
namespace component with the namespace of the resolving context.
Relative reference resolution SHALL apply to any nested values in
literal containers or in object reference parameters.
Because relative references can only exist in a specific named
context (_e.g._, an ADM module), resolution occurs at the point of
decoding and extracting ARI values from that context. The AMM
[I-D.ietf-dtn-amm] gives more specifics of how and when resolution is
handled by an ARI user.
7. ARI Patterns
Because the ARI logical structure (Section 3) uses path segments to
delimit the components of the absolute path, and due to the
restrictions of the ARI path segment content, it is possible for URI
reserved characters to be able to provide wildcard-type patterns.
Although the form is similar, an ARI Pattern is not itself an ARI and
they cannot be used interchangeably. The context used to interpret
and match an ARI Pattern SHALL be explicit and separate from that
used to interpret and dereference an ARI.
While an ARI is used to dereference to a specific managed object and
invoke behavior on that object, an ARI Pattern is used solely to
perform matching logic against text-form ARIs. The ARI Pattern SHALL
NOT ever take the form of a URI Reference; only as an absolute URI.
An ARI Pattern SHALL NOT ever contain parameters, only object
identifier.
An ARI Pattern has no optional path segments. When used as a literal
ARI pattern the path SHALL have two components. When used as an
object reference ARI pattern the path SHALL have four components (an
authority and three path segments).
The single-wildcard is the only defined components pattern and a
components can either be a specific ID or a single wildcard. Because
an ARI Pattern is just used to match text-form ARIs it has no
specific restrictions on enumerated segment text the way a valid ARI
does.
The ABNF for the ARI Pattern is given below, and relates to the ARI
ABNF through the val-seg rule from Section 4.1.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
ari-pat = "ari:" ari-pat-ssp
ari-pat-ssp = ari-pat-literal / ari-pat-objref
ari-pat-literal = "/" id-pat "/" id-pat
ari-pat-objref = "//" id-pat "/" id-pat "/" id-pat "/" id-pat
; The non-wildcard rule is the same as ARI syntax
id-pat = wildcard / val-seg
wildcard = "*"
7.1. ARI Matching
An ARI Pattern SHALL be considered to match an ARI when, after
removing the ARI's parameters, each component of the ARI Pattern
matches the corresponding ARI path component. Each pattern component
SHALL be considered to match according to the following rules:
Specific value: The pattern component SHALL be compared with the ARI
component after both are percent-decoded in accordance with
Section 2.1 of [RFC3986] and UTF-8 decoded in accordance with
[RFC3629].
Single-segment wildcard: The pattern component SHALL be considered
to match with any ARI component, if present, including an empty
component.
8. Transcoding Considerations
When translating literal values into text form, it is necessary to
canonicalize the CBOR extended diagnostic notation of the item. The
following applies to generating text form from CBOR items:
* Only the outermost value SHALL contain the "ari:" scheme prefix.
This applies to cases of either literal container types or object
reference parameter values.
* The canonical presentation form of CBOR null and bool values SHALL
be the names identified in Section 8 of [RFC8949].
* The canonical presentation form of CBOR int and float values SHALL
be the decimal encoding defined in Section 8 of [RFC8949].
* The canonical presentation form of CBOR tstr values SHALL be the
definite-length, non-concatenated encoding defined in Section 8 of
[RFC8949].
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
* The canonical presentation form of CBOR bstr values SHALL be the
definite-length, base16 ("h" prefix), non-concatenated encoding
defined in Section 8 of [RFC8949].
* The canonical presentation form for literal type TP values SHALL
be the human-friendly date-time encoding.
* The canonical presentation form for literal type TD values SHALL
be the human-friendly duration encoding.
* When canonical presentation form for literal type CBOR values
SHALL be the embedded CBOR encoding defined in Appendix G.3 of
[RFC8610].
9. Interoperability Considerations
DTN challenged networks might interface with better resourced
networks that are managed using non-DTN management protocols. When
this occurs, the federated network architecture might need to define
management gateways that translate between DTN and non-DTN management
approaches.
| NOTE: It is also possible for DTN management be used end-to-end
| because this approach can also operate in less challenged
| networks. The opposite is not true; non-DTN management
| approaches should not be assumed to work in DTN challenged
| networks.
Where possible, ARIs should be translatable to other, non-DTN
management naming schemes. This translation might not be 1-1, as the
features of the ADM may differ from features in other management
naming schemes. Therefore, it is unlikely that a single naming
scheme can be used for both DTN and non-DTN management.
10. Security Considerations
Because ADM and ODM namespaces are defined by any entity, no security
or permission meaning can be inferred simply from the expression of
namespace.
11. IANA Considerations
This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of schema and namespaces
related to ARIs, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC1155].
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
11.1. URI Schemes Registry
This document defines a new URI scheme "ari" in Section 4. A new
entry has been added to the "URI Schemes" registry [IANA-URI] with
the following parameters.
Scheme name:
ari
Status:
Permanent
Applications/protocols that use this scheme name:
The scheme is used by DTNMA Managers and Agents to identify
managed objects.
Contact:
IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Change controller:
IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Reference:
Section 4 of [This document].
11.2. DTN Management Architecture
This document defines several new registries within a new "DTN
Management Architecture" registry group.
This document defines a new registry "Literal Types" within the "DTN
Management Architecture" registry group [IANA-DTNMA] containing
initial entries from Table 2. Enumerations in this registry SHALL be
non-negative integers representable as CBOR uint type with an
argument shorter than 4-bytes. Names in this registry SHALL be
unique among all entries in this and the "Managed Object Types"
registry. The registration procedure for the Literal Types registry
is Specification Required.
+=============+=========+==============================+===========+
| Enumeration | Name | Description | Reference |
+=============+=========+==============================+===========+
| _0_ | NULL | The singleton null value. | [This |
| | | | document] |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _1_ | BOOL | A native boolean true or | [This |
| | | false value. | document] |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
| _2_ | BYTE | An 8-bit unsigned integer. | [This |
| | | | document] |
| | | The valid domain is 0 to | |
| | | 2^8-1 inclusive. | |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _4_ | INT | A 32-bit signed integer. | [This |
| | | | document] |
| | | The valid domain is -2^31 to | |
| | | 2^31-1 inclusive | |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _5_ | UINT | A 32-bit unsigned integer. | [This |
| | | | document] |
| | | The valid domain is 0 to | |
| | | 2^32-1 inclusive | |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _6_ | VAST | A 64-bit signed integer. | [This |
| | | | document] |
| | | The valid domain is -2^63 to | |
| | | 2^63-1 inclusive | |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _7_ | UVAST | A 64-bit unsigned integer. | [This |
| | | | document] |
| | | The valid domain is 0 to | |
| | | 2^64-1 inclusive | |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _8_ | REAL32 | A 32-bit [IEEE.754-2019] | [This |
| | | floating point number. | document] |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _9_ | REAL64 | A 64-bit [IEEE.754-2019] | [This |
| | | floating point number. | document] |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _10_ | TEXTSTR | A text string composed of | [This |
| | | (unicode) characters in | document] |
| | | accordance with [RFC3629]. | |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _11_ | BYTESTR | A byte string composed of | [This |
| | | 8-bit values. | document] |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _12_ | TP | An absolute time point (TP) | [This |
| | | in the DTN Epoch of | document] |
| | | Section 4.2.6 of [RFC9171]. | |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _13_ | TD | A relative time difference | [This |
| | | (TD) with a sign. | document] |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _14_ | LABEL | A text label of a parent | [This |
| | | object parameter. This is | document] |
| | | only valid in a nested | |
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
| | | parameterized ARI. | |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _15_ | CBOR | A byte string containing an | [This |
| | | encoded CBOR item. The | document] |
| | | structure is opaque to the | |
| | | Agent but guaranteed well- | |
| | | formed for the ADM using it. | |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _16_ | ARITYPE | An integer or text value | [This |
| | | representing one of the code | document] |
| | | points in this Literal Types | |
| | | registry or the Managed | |
| | | Object Types registry. | |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _17_ | AC | An array containing an | [This |
| | | ordered list of ARIs. | document] |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _18_ | AM | A map containing keys of | [This |
| | | primitive ARIs and values of | document] |
| | | ARIs. | |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _19_ | TBL | A two-dimensional table | [This |
| | | containing cells of ARIs. | document] |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _20_ | EXECSET | A structure containing | [This |
| | | values to be executed by an | document] |
| | | Agent. | |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _21_ | RPTSET | A structure containing | [This |
| | | reports of values sampled | document] |
| | | from an Agent. | |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| 22 to 254 | | _Unassigned_ | |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| _255_ | LITERAL | A reserved type name for the | [This |
| | | union of all possible | document] |
| | | literal types. | |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| 256 to | | _Unassigned_ | |
| 65279 | | | |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
| 65280 to | | Enumerations that are | [This |
| 2147483647 | | 2**16-2**8 and larger are | document] |
| | | reserved for private or | |
| | | experimental use. | |
+-------------+---------+------------------------------+-----------+
Table 2: Literal Types
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
This document defines a new registry "Managed Object Types" within
the "DTN Management Architecture" registry group [IANA-DTNMA]
containing initial entries from Table 3. Enumerations in this
registry SHALL be negative integers representable as CBOR nint type
with an argument shorter than 4-bytes. Names in this registry SHALL
be unique among all entries in this and the "Literal Types" registry.
The registration procedure for the Managed Object Types registry is
Specification Required.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
+=============+=========+============================+===========+
| Enumeration | Name | Description | Reference |
+=============+=========+============================+===========+
| _-1_ | IDENT | Identity Object | [This |
| | | | document] |
+-------------+---------+----------------------------+-----------+
| _-2_ | CONST | Constant | [This |
| | | | document] |
+-------------+---------+----------------------------+-----------+
| _-3_ | CTRL | Control | [This |
| | | | document] |
+-------------+---------+----------------------------+-----------+
| _-4_ | EDD | Externally Defined Data | [This |
| | | | document] |
+-------------+---------+----------------------------+-----------+
| _-6_ | OPER | Operator | [This |
| | | | document] |
+-------------+---------+----------------------------+-----------+
| _-8_ | SBR | State-Based Rule | [This |
| | | | document] |
+-------------+---------+----------------------------+-----------+
| _-10_ | TBR | Time-Based Rule | [This |
| | | | document] |
+-------------+---------+----------------------------+-----------+
| _-11_ | VAR | Variable | [This |
| | | | document] |
+-------------+---------+----------------------------+-----------+
| _-12_ | TYPEDEF | Named semantic type | [This |
| | | | document] |
+-------------+---------+----------------------------+-----------+
| -13 to -255 | | _Unassigned_ | |
+-------------+---------+----------------------------+-----------+
| _-256_ | OBJECT | A reserved type name for | [This |
| | | the union of all possible | document] |
| | | object types. | |
+-------------+---------+----------------------------+-----------+
| -257 to | | _Unassigned_ | |
| -65280 | | | |
+-------------+---------+----------------------------+-----------+
| -65281 to | | Enumerations that are | [This |
| -2147483648 | | -1-(2**16-2**8) and larger | document] |
| | | are reserved for private | |
| | | or experimental use. | |
+-------------+---------+----------------------------+-----------+
Table 3: Managed Object Types
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
IANA has annotated the "Literal Types" and "Managed Object Types"
registries with the following note:
| The enumeration and name of all entries managed by IANA are unique
| across both the "Literal Types" and "Managed Object Types"
| registries.
This document defines a new registry "Namespace Organizations" within
the "DTN Management Architecture" registry group [IANA-DTNMA]
containing initial entries from Table 5. Enumerations in this
registry are 32-bit signed integers. Names in this registry are text
containing only lower-case alphabetic and numeric characters, a
subset of the id-text ABNF rule. The registration procedures for
this registry are indicated in Table 4.
+=====================+=========================+
| Enumeration Range | Registration Procedure |
+=====================+=========================+
| -2147483648 to 0 | Reserved |
+---------------------+-------------------------+
| 1 to 65535 | Expert Review |
+---------------------+-------------------------+
| 65536 to 2147483647 | First Come First Served |
+---------------------+-------------------------+
Table 4: Namespace Organizations Registration
Procedures
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
+=============+=========+==================+=======================+
| Enumeration | Name | Contact | Notes |
+=============+=========+==================+=======================+
| -2147483648 | | | Reserved for |
| to | | | Experimental Use |
| -2147483777 | | | |
+-------------+---------+------------------+-----------------------+
| -2147483776 | | | Reserved for Private |
| to -1 | | | Use |
+-------------+---------+------------------+-----------------------+
| 0 | | | Reserved |
+-------------+---------+------------------+-----------------------+
| 1 | ietf | IETF Chair | All IETF standardized |
| | | <chair@ietf.org> | models will use this |
| | | | organization |
+-------------+---------+------------------+-----------------------+
| 2 | iana | IETF Chair | All IANA registry |
| | | <chair@ietf.org> | models will use this |
| | | | organization |
+-------------+---------+------------------+-----------------------+
| 3 to 65534 | | | _Unassigned_ |
+-------------+---------+------------------+-----------------------+
| 65535 | example | IETF Chair | Reserved for example |
| | | <chair@ietf.org> | ADMs |
+-------------+---------+------------------+-----------------------+
| 65536 to | | | _Unassigned_ |
| 2147483647 | | | |
+-------------+---------+------------------+-----------------------+
Table 5: Namespace Organizations
This document defines a new registry "IETF Data Models" within the
"DTN Management Architecture" registry group [IANA-DTNMA] containing
initial entries from Table 6. All of the ADMs in this registry are
under the "ietf" organization (enumeration 1) from Table 5.
Enumerations in this registry are 32-bit signed integers. The
registration procedures for this registry are standards action.
+===================+======+===========+===================+
| Enumeration | Name | Reference | Notes |
+===================+======+===========+===================+
| -2147483648 to -1 | | | Reserved for ODMs |
+-------------------+------+-----------+-------------------+
| 0 to 2147483647 | | | _Unassigned_ |
+-------------------+------+-----------+-------------------+
Table 6: IETF Data Models
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
This document defines a new registry "IANA Data Models" within the
"DTN Management Architecture" registry group [IANA-DTNMA] containing
initial entries from Table 6. All of the ADMs in this registry are
under the "iana" organization (enumeration 2) from Table 5.
Enumerations in this registry are 32-bit signed integers. The
registration procedures for this registry are standards action.
+===================+======+===========+===================+
| Enumeration | Name | Reference | Notes |
+===================+======+===========+===================+
| -2147483648 to -1 | | | Reserved for ODMs |
+-------------------+------+-----------+-------------------+
| 0 to 2147483647 | | | _Unassigned_ |
+-------------------+------+-----------+-------------------+
Table 7: IANA Data Models
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[IANA-DTNMA]
IANA, "Delay-Tolerant Networking Management Architecture
(DTNMA) Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/TBA/>.
[IANA-URI] IANA, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/>.
[IEEE.754-2019]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic",
IEEE IEEE 754-2019, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2019.8766229, 18
July 2019, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8766229>.
[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>.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC7595] Thaler, D., Ed., Hansen, T., and T. Hardie, "Guidelines
and Registration Procedures for URI Schemes", BCP 35,
RFC 7595, DOI 10.17487/RFC7595, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7595>.
[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>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
[RFC8943] Jones, M., Nadalin, A., and J. Richter, "Concise Binary
Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Date", RFC 8943,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8943, November 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8943>.
[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>.
[RFC9171] Burleigh, S., Fall, K., and E. Birrane, III, "Bundle
Protocol Version 7", RFC 9171, DOI 10.17487/RFC9171,
January 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9171>.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
[I-D.ietf-dtn-amm]
III, E. J. B., Sipos, B., and J. Ethier, "DTNMA
Application Management Model (AMM) and Data Models", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-dtn-amm-03, 18
February 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/v1/doc/document/draft-
ietf-dtn-amm/>.
12.2. Informative References
[IEEE.1003.1-2024]
IEEE, "IEEE/Open Group Standard for Information
Technology--Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX™)
Base Specifications, Issue 8", IEEE 1003-1-2024,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2024.10555529, 12 June 2024,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10555529>.
[ISO.9899-1999]
ISO, "Programming Languages -- C", ISO/IEC 9899:1999,
December 1999, <https://www.iso.org/standard/29237.html>.
[RFC1155] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and identification
of management information for TCP/IP-based internets",
STD 16, RFC 1155, DOI 10.17487/RFC1155, May 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1155>.
[RFC4838] Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst,
R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant
Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, DOI 10.17487/RFC4838,
April 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4838>.
[RFC7320] Nottingham, M., "URI Design and Ownership", RFC 7320,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7320, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7320>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[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>.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
[RFC8820] Nottingham, M., "URI Design and Ownership", BCP 190,
RFC 8820, DOI 10.17487/RFC8820, June 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8820>.
[RFC9675] Birrane, III, E., Heiner, S., and E. Annis, "Delay-
Tolerant Networking Management Architecture (DTNMA)",
RFC 9675, DOI 10.17487/RFC9675, November 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9675>.
[github-dtnma-ace]
JHU/APL, "The DTNMA AMM CODEC Engine (ACE)",
<https://github.com/JHUAPL-DTNMA/dtnma-ace>.
[github-dtnma-tools]
JHU/APL, "A reference implementation of the DTN Management
Architecture (DTNMA) Agent and related Tools",
<https://github.com/JHUAPL-DTNMA/dtnma-ace>.
Appendix A. Example Equivalences
This section contains examples of converting between text name and
integer enumeration of ARI components and converting between text
form and binary form of entire ARIs. The examples in this section
rely on the ADM and ODM definitions in Table 8 under the well-known
"example" organization from Table 5 and a private use organization
"!private" with an enumeration -40.
+===================+===================+============+
| Organization Name | Model Enumeration | Model Name |
+===================+===================+============+
| example | 1 | adm-a |
+-------------------+-------------------+------------+
| example | 2 | adm-b |
+-------------------+-------------------+------------+
| example | -10 | !odm10 |
+-------------------+-------------------+------------+
| !private | 30 | adm-a |
+-------------------+-------------------+------------+
Table 8: Example ADMs
Given those namespaces, the example objects are listed in Table 9
where the Namespace column uses the ARI text form convention.
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
+============+======+=======+===========+================+=========+
|Organization|Model |Object |Enumeration| Name |Signature|
|Name |Name |Type | | | |
+============+======+=======+===========+================+=========+
|example |adm-a |EDD |3 | num-bytes |() |
+------------+------+-------+-----------+----------------+---------+
|example |adm-a |CTRL |2 | do_thing |(AC |
| | | | | |targets, |
| | | | | |UINT |
| | | | | |count) |
+------------+------+-------+-----------+----------------+---------+
|example |adm-a |CONST |1 | rpt_with_param |(ARI var,|
| | | | | |TEXTSTR |
| | | | | |text) |
+------------+------+-------+-----------+----------------+---------+
|example |adm-a |TYPEDEF|1 | distance |() |
+------------+------+-------+-----------+----------------+---------+
|example |!odm10|VAR |2 | threshold |() |
+------------+------+-------+-----------+----------------+---------+
|!private |adm-a |VAR |1 | my-counter |() |
+------------+------+-------+-----------+----------------+---------+
Table 9: Example Objects
The TYPEDEF distance is defined to be an augmented use of uint with
scale of 1.0 and unit of meter.
Each of the following examples illustrate the comparison of ARI forms
in different situations, covering the gamut of what can be expressed
by an ARI.
A.1. Primitive-Typed Literal
This is the literal value 4 interpreted as a 32-bit unsigned integer.
The ARI text (which is identical to its percent-encoded form) is:
ari:/UINT/4
which is translated to enumerated form:
ari:/5/4
and converted to CBOR item:
[5, 4]
and finally to the binary string of:
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
0x820504
A.2. Timestamp Literal
This is the timestamp "2000-01-01T00:16:40Z" which is DTN Epoch plus
1000 seconds. The ARI text (which is identical to its percent-
encoded form) is:
ari:/TP/20000101T001640Z
which is translated to enumerated form:
ari:/12/1000
and converted to CBOR item:
[12, 1000]
and finally to the binary string of:
0x820c1a000f4240
A.3. Semantic-Typed Literal
This is the literal value 20 interpreted as a semantic type distance
from adm-a. The ARI text (which is identical to its percent-encoded
form) is:
ari://example/adm-a/TYPEDEF/distance(20)
which is translated to enumerated form:
ari://65535/1/-12/1(20)
and converted to CBOR item:
[65535, 1, -12, 1, [20]]
and finally to the binary string of:
0x8519FFFF012B018114
A.4. Complex CBOR Literal
This is a literal value embedding a complex CBOR structure. The CBOR
diagnostic expression being encoded is
<<{"test": [3, 4.5]}>>
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
The embedded item can be CBOR-encoded to a byte string and percent-
encoded, along with a translated type enumeration of:
ari:/15/h'A164746573748203F94480'
and converted to CBOR item (note the byte string is no longer text-
encoded):
[15, h'A164746573748203F94480']
and finally to the binary string of:
0x820F4BA164746573748203F94480
A.5. Non-parameterized Object Reference
This is a non-parameterized num-bytes object in the ADM namespace.
The ARI text (which is identical to its percent-encoded form) is:
ari://example/adm-a/edd/num-bytes
which is translated to enumerated form:
ari://65535/1/-4/3
and converted to CBOR item:
[65535, 1, -4, 3]
and finally to the binary string of:
0x831A000100002303
A.6. Parameterized Object Reference
This is an parameterized do_thing object in the ADM namespace.
Additionally, the parameters include two relative-path relative
references to other objects in the same ADM, which are resolved after
text-decoding (see Section 6.2). The ARI text (which is identical to
its percent-encoded form) is:
ari://example/adm-a/ctrl/do_thing(/AC/(./edd/num-bytes,../!odm10/var/threshold,//!private/adm-a/var/my-counter),3)
which is translated to enumerated and resolved form:
ari://65535/1/-3/2(/17/(//65535/1/-4/3,//65535/-10/-11/2,//-40/30/-11/1),3)
and converted to CBOR item:
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
[65535, 1, -3, 2, [
[17, [
[65535, 1, -4, 3],
[65535, -10, -11, 2],
[-40, 30, -11, 1]
]],
3
]]
and finally to the binary string of:
0x8519FFFF012202828211838419FFFF0123038419FFFF292A02843827181E2A0103
A.7. Recursive Structure with Percent Encodings
This is a complex example having nested ARIs, some with percent-
encoding needed. The human-friendly (but not valid URI) text for
this case is:
ari://example/adm-a/rptt/rpt_with_param("text")
which is percent encoded to the real URI:
ari://example/adm-a/rptt/rpt_with_param(%22text%22)
which is translated to enumerated form:
ari://65535/1/-7/1(%22text%22)
and converted to CBOR item:
[65535, 1, -7, 1, ["text"]]
and finally to the binary string of:
0x8519FFFF012601816474657874
Appendix B. Implementation Guidance
When implementing text-form ARI decoding as a token lexer and LR(1)
parser, such as POSIX lex and yacc tools [IEEE.1003.1-2024], there
are some techniques that can avoid pitfalls.
One is to use the generic val-seg rule from Section 4.1 as the
pattern to match any URI path segment. This requires multi-phase
processing in many cases, where the val-seg rule matches the segment
which is then percent-decoded and primitive or context-specific rules
are then used to decode the segment further. While the use of
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
percent encoding is discouraged when unnecessary, and for many ARI
values will be unnecessary, the generic URI syntax still allows for
percent encoding of segments and a robust ARI decoder needs to handle
that.
To avoid lexer ambiguities related to recursive ARI structures (which
are present in containers and parameters), it is best to combine the
entire object identifier of an Object Reference into a single token
consisting of slash-separated val-seg segments. When the lexer uses
capture length to perform tie-breaking between multiple rules that
match an input text this will cause the object identifier rule to be
preferred over Literal value rules (will which always contain fewer
path segments).
When handling literal values, the text encodings defined in this
document agree in many cases with text encodings provided by the C
language starting with C99 [ISO.9899-1999] for the following uses.
Signed Integer: This agrees with the printf() format %lld and the
parsing function strtoll(). Signed hexadecimals must be encoded
with the sign separately.
Unsigned Integer: This agrees with the printf() format %llu and
%llxand the parsing function strtoull().
Floating Point: This agrees with the printf() formats %e %f %g and
%a and the parsing function strtod(). This includes parsing of
non-finite values but encoders might need to handle those values
specially.
Decimal Fractions: These are used for TP and TD types. The sign,
integer portion, and fractional portion can each be handled as
separate components, with the latter two using unsigned integer
codecs (see above).
Absolute Times: This is used only for the TP type. The integer
portion is are compatible with the strftime() and strptime()
formats of %Y%m%dT%H%M%S, with the output having the "Z" zone
suffix appended and the input being stripped of optional "-" and
":" delimiters. The fractional portion can be handled the same as
for decimal fractions (above).
Relative Times: This is used only for the TD type. There is no
direct handling of text form time duration but each separate
component can be handled as an unsigned decimal integer or decimal
fraction (see above).
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
Implementation Status
This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
[NOTE to the RFC Editor: please remove this section before
publication, as well as the reference to [RFC7942],
[github-dtnma-ace], and [github-dtnma-tools].]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations can
exist.
A full implementation in Python language of the ARI encoding and
decoding requirements for both text URI and binary CBOR forms, and
for translating between text name and integer enumeration (based on
ADM contents) is present in the apl-fy24 development branch of
[github-dtnma-ace]. This repository includes unit test vectors for
verifying ARI encoding and decoding.
A full implementation in C11 language of the ARI encoding and
decoding requirements for both text URI and binary CBOR forms is
present in the apl-fy24 development branch of [github-dtnma-tools].
This repository includes unit test vectors for verifying ARI encoding
and decoding. It also has built-item (executable) testing which
interoperates the Python ACE library with REFDA and REFDM
executables.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Justin Ethier of the Johns Hopkins University Applied
Physics Laboratory for review and implementation testing of ARI
encoder/decoder (CODEC) software.
Authors' Addresses
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft DTNMA ARI February 2025
Edward J. Birrane, III
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
11100 Johns Hopkins Rd.
Laurel, MD 20723
United States of America
Phone: +1 443 778 7423
Email: Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu
Emery Annis
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Email: Emery.Annis@jhuapl.edu
Brian Sipos
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Email: brian.sipos+ietf@gmail.com
Birrane, et al. Expires 22 August 2025 [Page 55]