[Sis-dtn] [EXT] Deterministic CBOR encoding

Thu Nov 18 15:17:21 UTC 2021

Cool,

do we currently have any indefinite-length items in BPv7 / BPSEC besides 
the bundle itself? Maybe this exception is not needed,

(I have been planning to use indefinite-length arrays in the compressed 
reporting block as it could be more efficient in terms of size but I would 
be happy to go to definite-length).

Regards,
Felix

From:   "Birrane, Edward J." <Edward.Birrane at jhuapl.edu>
To:     "Felix.Flentge at esa.int" <Felix.Flentge at esa.int>, 
"sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org" <sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org>
Cc:     "sburleig.sb at gmail.com" <sburleig.sb at gmail.com>, 
"kfall+rcs at kfall.com"   <kfall+rcs at kfall.com>
Date:   18/11/2021 15:18
Subject:        RE: [EXT] [Sis-dtn] Deterministic CBOR encoding

Felix,

  I had almost this exact conversation with Scott Burleigh and Kevin Fall 
yesterday.

  The approach to addressing this is to clarify what is meant by Canonical 
CBOR as part of AUTH48, with a statement of something like the following:

?the CBOR representations of the values of all fields in all blocks must 
conform to the Core Deterministic Encoding Requirements as specified in 
[RFC8949] except that indefinite-length items are not prohibited."

  The intent of the BPv7 spec is clearly to allow some indefinite length 
items, as the spec uses indefinite-length items, and the wording in 
Section 4.1 is meant to describe the encoding of fields within block 
otherwise. The exact wording will be figured out once we have the 
RFC-editor version of the text to review.

-Ed

Edward J. Birrane, III, Ph.D. (he/him/his)
Chief Engineer, Space Constellation Networking
Space Exploration Sector
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
(W) 443-778-7423 / (C) 443-690-8272

From: SIS-DTN <sis-dtn-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org> On Behalf Of 
Felix.Flentge at esa.int
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 7:02 AM
To: sis-dtn at mailman.ccsds.org
Subject: [EXT] [Sis-dtn] Deterministic CBOR encoding

Dear All, 

I have spend some time this morning to understand the requirements we get 
for the BPv7 CBOR encoding from draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-31.txt, RFC 8949, and 
draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-27 (actually, I have been worried about a potential 
issue with the current BPv7 spec; now I think it is probably ok). Anyway, 
this is my understanding of the current situation. Please let me know 
whether you share it or not. 

draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-31.txt: 

We have: 

4. Bundle Format

4.1. Bundle Structure

  The format of bundles SHALL conform to the Concise Binary Object
  Representation (CBOR [RFC8949]).

  Cryptographic verification of a block is possible only if the
  sequence of octets on which the verifying node computes its hash -
  the canonicalized representation of the block - is identical to the
  sequence of octets on which the hash declared for that block was
  computed.  To ensure that blocks are always in canonical
  representation when they are transmitted and received, the CBOR
  representations of the values of all fields in all blocks must
  conform to the rules for Canonical CBOR as specified in [RFC8949]. 

 There are two small issues here: 
- Only the first statement is a real requirement for BPv7, the 'must' in 
the last sentence is not capitalised meaning it is not normative (AFAIK). 
- RFC8949 does not really specify 'Canonical CBOR': 
Section 4.2.3 contains the following note: 
      |  Although [RFC7049] used the term "Canonical CBOR" for its form
     |  of requirements on deterministic encoding, this document avoids
     |  this term because "canonicalization" is often associated with
     |  specific uses of deterministic encoding only.  The terms are
     |  essentially interchangeable, however, and the set of core
     |  requirements in this document could also be called "Canonical
     |  CBOR", while the length-first-ordered version of that could be
     |  called "Old Canonical CBOR".
and G.3:

   For a single value in the data model, CBOR often provides multiple
  encoding options.  A new section (Section 4) introduces the term
  "preferred serialization" (Section 4.1) and defines it for various
  kinds of data items.  On the basis of this terminology, the section
  then discusses how a CBOR-based protocol can define "deterministic
  encoding" (Section 4.2), which avoids terms "canonical" and
  "canonicalization" from RFC 7049.  The suggestion of "Core
  Deterministic Encoding Requirements" (Section 4.2.1) enables generic
  support for such protocol-defined encoding requirements.  This
  document further eases the implementation of deterministic encoding
  by simplifying the map ordering suggested in RFC 7049 to a simple
  lexicographic ordering of encoded keys.  A description of the older
  suggestion is kept as an alternative, now termed "length-first map
  key ordering" (Section 4.2.3).

 Anyway, for our purposes we probably can understand 'rules for Canonical 
CBOR' as the Core Deterministic Requirements in Section 4.2.1 (at least as 
long as we don't use maps, see 4.2.3). This view would be supported by 
draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-27: 
4.  Canonical Forms

 [...]

  The canonical form of the primary block is as specified in
  [I-D.ietf-dtn-bpbis] with the following constraint.

  o  CBOR values from the primary block MUST be canonicalized using the
     rules for Deterministically Encoded CBOR, as specified in
     [RFC8949].

  All non-primary blocks share the same block structure and are
  canonicalized as specified in [I-D.ietf-dtn-bpbis] with the following
  constraints.

  o  CBOR values from the non-primary block MUST be canonicalized using
     the rules for Deterministically Encoded CBOR, as specified in
     [RFC8949]. 

(It would be even better if there would be an explicit reference to 
Section 4.2.1.) 

So, for CCSDS the main questions seems to be whether we are happy enough 
with the core deterministic requirements in RFC8949, Section 4.2.1, 
basically: 
*  Preferred serialization MUST be used.  In particular, this means
     that arguments (see Section 3) for integers, lengths in major
     types 2 through 5, and tags MUST be as short as possible, for
     instance:
[...]

  *  Indefinite-length items MUST NOT appear.  They can be encoded as
     definite-length items instead.

  *  The keys in every map MUST be sorted in the bytewise lexicographic
     order of their deterministic encodings. [...]

We are not using maps (currently; and may want to avoid in the future) and 
shall not use indefinite-length items in (extension) blocks (the whole 
indefinite length bundle array should be ok). I would suggest that we 
consult with more hardware-oriented people whether the '... as short as 
possible ...' requirements would be a problem. If not, I would suggest 
that we explicitly require Deterministically Encoded CBOR according to 
RFC8949, 4.2.1. Otherwise, we might have to define something more 
CCSDS-specific (and would risk loosing interoperability with other 
implementations, in particular, regarding bundle security). 

Regards, 
Felix 

Disclaimer 
This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may 
contain proprietary information and/or protected content. Any unauthorised 
disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA 
applies appropriate organisational measures to protect personal data, in 
case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection 
Officer (dpo at esa.int).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20211118/856a5ddc/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 11926 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-dtn/attachments/20211118/856a5ddc/attachment-0001.bin>