



CBOR                                                        L. Lundblade
Internet-Draft                                       Security Theory LLC
Intended status: Standards Track                         5 December 2025
Expires: 8 June 2026


                   CBOR Serialization and Determinism
                    draft-ietf-cbor-serialization-01

Abstract

   This document defines two CBOR serializations: "ordinary
   serialization" and "deterministic serialization."  It also introduces
   the term "general serialization" to name the full, variable set of
   serialization options defined in [STD94].  Together, these three form
   a complete set of serializations that cover the majority of CBOR
   serialization use cases.

   These serializations are largely compatible with those widely
   implemented by the CBOR community.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-serialization/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the CBOR Working Group
   mailing list (mailto:cbor@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/.  Subscribe at
   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/cbor-wg/draft-ietf-cbor-serialization.

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/.






Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


   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 8 June 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   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
   2.  General Serialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Ordinary Serialization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Encoder Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Decoder Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  When to use ordinary serialization  . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.4.  Relation To Preferred Serialization . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Deterministic Serialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Encoder Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.2.  Decoder Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.3.  When to use Deterministic Serialization . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  CDDL Control Operators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix A.  Information Model, Data Model and Serialization  . .  13
   Appendix B.  General Protocol Considerations for Determinism  . .  14
   Appendix C.  Deterministic Encoding for Popular Tags  . . . . . .  15
     C.1.  Date Strings, Tag 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     C.2.  Epoch Date, Tag 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       C.2.1.  Encoder Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       C.2.2.  Decoder Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     C.3.  Big Numbers, Tags 2 and 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16



Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


     C.4.  Big Floats and Decimal Fractions, Tags 4 and 5  . . . . .  16
       C.4.1.  Encoder Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       C.4.2.  Decoder Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Appendix D.  IEEE 754 NaN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     D.1.  Basics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     D.2.  Implementation Support for Non-Trivial NaNs . . . . . . .  17
     D.3.  Use and Non-use for Non-Trivial NaNs  . . . . . . . . . .  18
     D.4.  Clarification of STD94  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     D.5.  Divergence from STD94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     D.6.  Recommendations for Use of Non-Trival NaNs  . . . . . . .  21
   Appendix E.  Serialization Checking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     E.1.  Serialization Checking Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Appendix F.  CBOR Byte String Wrapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     F.1.  Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     F.2.  Wrapping Recommendations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     F.3.  CBOR Library Implementation Suggestion  . . . . . . . . .  23
   Appendix G.  Examples and Test Vectors  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24

1.  Introduction

   Background material on serialization and determinism concepts is
   provided in Appendix A.  Readers may wish to review this background
   information first.

   This document defines new serializations rather than attempting to
   clarify those in [STD94] (that need clarification).  This approach
   enables the serialization requirements to be expressed directly in
   normative [RFC2119] language, and to be consolidated in this single
   comprehensive specification.  This approach provides clarity and
   simplicity for implementers and the CBOR community over the long
   term.

   The serializations defined herein are formally new, but largely
   interchangeable with the way the serializations desecribed in [STD94]
   are implemented.

   For example, preferred serialization described in [STD94] is commonly
   implemented without support for indefinite-lengths.  Ordinary
   serialization is defined here is largely the same preferred
   serialization without indefinite-lengths, so it is largely
   interchangeable with what is commonly implemented.








Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


2.  General Serialization

   This section assigns the name "general serialization" to the full set
   of serialization options standardized in Section 3 of [STD94].  This
   full set was not explicitly named in [STD94].

   General serialization consists of all of these:

   *  Any length CBOR argument (e.g., the integer 0 may be encoded as
      0x00, 0x1800 or or 0x190000 and so on).

   *  Any length floating point regardless of value (e.g. 0.00 can be
      0xf900, 0xfa000000000 and so on).

   *  Both definite or indefinite-length strings, arrays and maps are
      allowed.

   *  Big numbers can represent values that are also representable by
      major types 0 and 1 (e.g., 0 can be encoded as a big number, as
      0xc34100).

   A decoder that supports general serialization is able to decode all
   of these.

   If a CBOR-based protocol specification does not explicitly specify
   serialization, general serialization is implied.  This means that a
   compliant decoder for such a protocol is required to accept all forms
   allowed by general serialization including both definite and
   indefinite lengths.  For example, CBOR Web Token, [RFC8392] does not
   specify serialization; therefore, a full and proper CWT decoder must
   be able to handle variable-length CBOR argments plus indefinite-
   length strings, arrays and maps.

   In practice, however, it is widely recognized that some CWT decoders
   cannot process the full range of general serialization, particularly
   indefinite lengths.  As a result, CWT encoders typically limit
   themselves to the subset of serializations that decoders can reliably
   handle, most notably by never encoding indefinite lengths.  It is
   similar for other CBOR-based protocols like [RFC9052].  See also
   Section 3.

   Note also that there is no shortest-length requirement for floating-
   point encoding in general serialization.  Thus, IEEE 754 NaNs (See
   Appendix D) may be encoded with a desired size, regardless of their
   payload — a principle sometimes stated as “touch not the NaNs.”






Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


   Finally, note also that general serialization is inherently non-
   deterministic because some CBOR data items can be serialized in
   multiple ways.

3.  Ordinary Serialization

   This section defines a serialization named "ordinary serialization."

3.1.  Encoder Requirements

   1.  The shortest-form of the CBOR argument must be used for all major
       types.  The shortest-form encoding for any argument that is not a
       floating point value is:

       *  0 to 23 and -1 to -24 MUST be encoded in the same byte as the
          major type.

       *  24 to 255 and -25 to -256 MUST be encoded only with an
          additional byte (ai = 0x18).

       *  256 to 65535 and -257 to -65536 MUST be encoded only with an
          additional two bytes (ai = 0x19).

       *  65536 to 4294967295 and -65537 to -4294967296 MUST be encoded
          only with an additional four bytes (ai = 0x1a).

   2.  If maps or arrays are encoded, they MUST use definite-length
       encoding (never indefinite-length).

   3.  If text or byte strings are encoded, they MUST use definite-
       length encoding (never indefinite-length).

   4.  If floating-point numbers are encoded, the following apply:

       *  Half-precision MUST be supported

       *  Values MUST be encoded in the shortest of double, single or
          half-precision that preserves precision.  For example, 0.0 can
          always be reduced to half-precision so it MUST be encoded as
          0xf90000 For another example, 0.1 would loose precision if not
          encoded as double-precision so it MUST be encoded as
          0xfb3fb999999999999a.  Subnormal numbers MUST be supported in
          this shortest-length encoding.

       *  The only NaN that may be encoded is a half-precision quiet NaN
          (the sign bit and all but the highest payload bit is clear),
          specifically 0xf97e00.




Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


       *  Aside from the the requirement allowing only the half-
          precision quiet NaN, these are the same floating-point
          requirements as Section 4.1 of [STD94] and also as
          Section 4.2.1 of [STD94].

   5.  If big numbers (tags 2 and 3) are encoded, the following apply:

       *  Leadings zeros MUST NOT be encoded.

       *  If a value can be encoded using major type 0 or 1, then it
          MUST be encoded with major type 0 or 1, never as a big number.

3.2.  Decoder Requirements

   1.  Decoders MUST accept shortest-form encoded arguments.

   2.  If arrays or maps are supported, definite-length arrays or maps
       MUST be accepted.

   3.  If text or byte strings are supported, definite-length text or
       byte strings MUST be accepted.

   4.  If floating-point numbers are supported, the following apply:

       *  Half-precision values MUST be accepted.

       *  Double- and single-precision values SHOULD be accepted;
          leaving these out is only foreseen for decoders that need to
          work in exceptionally constrained environments.

       *  If double-precision values are accepted, single-precision
          values MUST be accepted.

   5.  If big numbers (tags 2 and 3) are accepted, the following apply:

       *  Big numbers described in Section 3.4.3 of [STD94] MUST be
          accepted.

       *  Leading zeros SHOULD be ignored.

       *  An empty string SHOULD be accepted and treated as the value
          zero.









Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


3.3.  When to use ordinary serialization

   The purpose of ordinary serialization is to provide interoperability
   without requiring support for indefinite-length decoding.  If an
   encoder never produces indefinite-length items, the decoder can
   safely treat them as errors.  Supporting indefinite-length decoding,
   especially for strings, introduces additional complexity and often
   necessitates dynamic memory allocation, so omitting it significantly
   reduces the implementation burden.

   Ordinary serialization also provides a size efficiency gain by
   encoding the CBOR argument in the shortest form.  Implementations
   typically find encoding and decoding in this form to be
   straightforward.

   The easy implementation and broad usefulness makes ordinary
   serialization the best choice for most CBOR protocols.  To some
   degree it is a de facto standard for common CBOR protocols.

   However, it is not suitable if determinism is needed because the
   order of items in a map is allowed to vary.  See Section 4.3.

   It may also not be suitable in some cases where special functionality
   is needed like the following:

   *  Streaming of of strings, arrays and maps in constrained
      environments where the length is not known

   *  Non-trival NaNs need to be supported

   *  Hardware environments where integers are encoded/decoded directly
      from/to hardware registers and shortest-length CBOR arguments
      would be burdensome

   In those cases, a special/custom serialization can be defined.

   But, for the vast majority of use cases, ordinary serialization
   provides interoperaibility, small encoded size and low implementation
   costs.

3.4.  Relation To Preferred Serialization

   Ordinary serialization is defined to be the long-term replacement for
   preferred serialization.

   The differences are:

   *  Definite lengths are a requirement, not a preference.



Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


   *  The only NaN allowed is the half-precision quiet NaN.

   These differences are not of significance in real-world
   implementations, so ordinary serialization is already largely
   supported.

   In Section 3 of [STD94] it states that in preferred serialization the
   use of definite-length encoding is a "preference", not a requirement.
   Technically that means preferred seriaization decoders must support
   indefinite legnths, but in reality many do not.  Indefinite lengths,
   particularly for strings, are often not supported because they are
   more complex to implement than other parts of CBOR.  Because of this,
   the implementation of most CBOR protocols use only definite lengths.

   Further, much of the CBOR community didn't notice the use of the word
   "preference" and realize its implications for decoder
   implementations.  It was somewhat assumed that preferred
   serialization didn't allow indefinite lengths.  That preferred
   serialization decoders are technically required to support indefinite
   lengths wasn't noticed until many years after the publication of
   [STD94].

   Briefly stated, the reason that the divergence on NaNs is not of
   consequence in the real world, is that their non-trivial forms are
   used extremely rarely and support for them in programming
   environments and CBOR libraries is unreliable.  See Appendix D.5 for
   a detailed discussion.

   Thus ordinary serialization is largely interchangable with preferred
   serialization in the real world.

4.  Deterministic Serialization

   This section defines a serialization named "deterministic
   serialization"

   Deterministic serialization is the same as described in Section 4.2.1
   of [STD94] except for the encoding of floating-point NaNs.  See
   Section 3 and Appendix D for details on and rationale for NaN
   encoding.

   Note that in deterministic serialization, any big number that can be
   represented as an integer must be encoded as an integer.  This rule
   is inherited from ordinary serialization (Section 3), just as
   Section 4.2.1 of [STD94] inherits this requirement from preferred
   serialization.





Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


4.1.  Encoder Requirements

   1.  All of ordinary serialization defined in Section 3.1 MUST be
       used.

   2.  If a map is encoded, the items in it MUST be sorted in the
       bytewise lexicographic order of their deterministic encodings of
       the map keys.  (Note that this is the same as the sorting in
       Section 4.2.1 of [STD94] and not the same as Section 3.9 of
       [RFC7049].

4.2.  Decoder Requirements

   1.  Decoders MUST meet the decoder requirements for Section 3.2.
       That is, deterministic encoding imposes no requirements over and
       above the requirements for decoding ordinary serialization.

4.3.  When to use Deterministic Serialization

   In the basic generic data model, maps are unordered (See Section 5.6
   of [STD94]).  Applications MUST NOT rely on any particular map
   ordering, even if the data was produced using deterministic
   serialization.  A CBOR library is not required to preserve the order
   of keys when decoding a map, and the underlying programming language
   may not preserve map order either— for example, the Go programming
   language provides no ordering guarantees for maps.  The sole purpose
   of map sorting in deterministic serialization is to ensure
   reproducibility of the encoded byte stream, not to provide any
   semantic ordering of map entries.  If an application requires a map
   to be ordered, it is responsible for applying its own sorting.

   Most applications do not require deterministic encoding — even those
   that employ signing or hashing to authenticate or protect the
   integrity of data.  For example, the payload of a COSE_Sign message
   (See [RFC9052]) does not need to be encoded deterministically because
   it is transmitted along with the message.  The recipient receives the
   exact same bytes that were signed.

   Deterministic encoding becomes necessary only when the protected data
   is not transmitted as the exact bytes that are used for authenticity
   or integrity verification.  In such cases, both the sender and the
   receiver must independently construct the exact same sequence of
   bytes.  To guarantee this, the encoding must eliminate all
   variability and ambiguity.  The Sig_structure, defined in Section 4.4
   of [RFC9052], is an example of this requirement.  Such designs are
   often chosen to reduce data size, preserve privacy, or meet other
   design constraints.




Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


   The only difference between ordinary and deterministic serialization
   is map key sorting.  Sorting can be expensive in very constrained
   environments.  This is the only reason these two are not combined
   into one.

   Deterministically encoded data is always decodable, even by receivers
   that do not specifically support deterministic encoding.
   Deterministic encoding can be helpful for debugging and such.  In
   environments where map sorting is not costly, it is acceptable and
   beneficial to always use it.  In such an environment, a CBOR encoder
   may produce deterministic encoding by default and may even omit
   support for ordinary encoding entirely.  But note that determinstic
   is never a substitue for general serialization where uses cases may
   require indefinite lengths, separate big numbers from integers in the
   data model, need non-trivial NaNs or other.

5.  CDDL Control Operators

   Four new control operators are defined for use in CDDL [RFC8610].

     +=========+=====================================================+
     | Name    | Purpose                                             |
     +=========+=====================================================+
     | .ord    | Use ordinary serialization for a data item          |
     +---------+-----------------------------------------------------+
     | .ordseq | Use ordinary serialization for a CBOR sequence      |
     +---------+-----------------------------------------------------+
     | .det    | Use deterministic serialization for a data item     |
     +---------+-----------------------------------------------------+
     | .detseq | Use deterministic serialization for a CBOR sequence |
     +---------+-----------------------------------------------------+

                                  Table 1

   These operators have the same semantics as the .cbor and .cborseq
   operators (See Section 3.8.4 of [RFC8610]) with the additional
   requirement for ordinary or deterministic serialization.  These
   specify that what is in the “controller” (the right side of the
   operator) be serialized as indicated.

   For example, a byte string containing embedded CBOR that must be
   deterministically encoded can be described in CDDL as:

   leaf = #6.24(bytes .det any)







Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


   The scope of these operators applies recursively through nested
   arrays and maps, but does not extend into byte strings or other data
   items that happen to contain encoded CBOR.  Every instance of
   embedded CBOR that requires constrained serialization must specify
   that constraint explicitly.  See also Appendix F.

6.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations in Section 10 of [STD94] apply.

7.  IANA Considerations


   // RFC Editor: please replace RFCXXXX with the RFC number of this RFC
   // and remove this note.

   This document requests IANA to register the contents of Table 2 into
   the registry "CDDL Control Operators" of the [IANA.cddl] registry
   group:

                          +---------+-----------+
                          | Name    | Reference |
                          +---------+-----------+
                          | .ord    | [RFCXXXX] |
                          | .ordseq | [RFCXXXX] |
                          | .det    | [RFCXXXX] |
                          | .detseq | [RFCXXXX] |
                          +---------+-----------+

                            Table 2: New control
                              operators to be
                                 registered

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [IANA.cddl]
              IANA, "Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL)",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cddl>.

   [IEEE754]  IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", IEEE
              Std 754-2019, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2019.8766229,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8766229>.







Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


   [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/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [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/rfc/rfc8610>.

   [STD94]    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/rfc/rfc8949>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [CTAP2]    W3C, "Client To Authenticator Protocol v2",
              <https://fidoalliance.org/specs/fido-v2.0-ps-20190130/
              fido-client-to-authenticator-protocol-v2.0-ps-
              20190130.html>.

   [NaNBoxing]
              Nystrom, R., "Crafting Interpreters", July 2021,
              <https://craftinginterpreters.com/optimization.html#nan-
              boxing>.

   [RFC7049]  Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
              Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
              October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7049>.

   [RFC8392]  Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig,
              "CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392,
              May 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8392>.

   [RFC9052]  Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
              Structures and Process", STD 96, RFC 9052,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9052, August 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9052>.

   [RFC9413]  Thomson, M. and D. Schinazi, "Maintaining Robust
              Protocols", RFC 9413, DOI 10.17487/RFC9413, June 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9413>.







Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


Appendix A.  Information Model, Data Model and Serialization

   To understand CBOR serialization and determinism, it's helpful to
   distinguish between the general concepts of an information model, a
   data model, and serialization.  These are broad concepts that can be
   applied to other serialization schemes like JSON and ASN.1

   +================+=============+===================+================+
   |                | Information | Data Model        | Serialization  |
   |                | Model       |                   |                |
   +================+=============+===================+================+
   | Abstraction    | Top level;  | Realization of    | Actual bytes   |
   | Level          | conceptual  | information in    | encoded for    |
   |                |             | data structures   | transmission   |
   |                |             | and data types    |                |
   +----------------+-------------+-------------------+----------------+
   | Example        | The         | A floating-       | Encoded CBOR   |
   |                | temperature | point number      | of a floating- |
   |                | of          | representing      | point number   |
   |                | something   | the temperature   |                |
   +----------------+-------------+-------------------+----------------+
   | Standards      |             | CDDL              | CBOR           |
   +----------------+-------------+-------------------+----------------+
   | Implementation |             | API Input to      | Encoded CBOR   |
   | Representation |             | CBOR encoder      | in memory or   |
   |                |             | library, output   | for            |
   |                |             | from CBOR         | transmission   |
   |                |             | decoder library   |                |
   +----------------+-------------+-------------------+----------------+

                                  Table 3

   CBOR doesn't provide facilities for information models.  They are
   mentioned here for completeness and to provide some context.

   CBOR defines a palette of basic types that are the usual integers,
   floating-point numbers, strings, arrays, maps and other.  Extended
   types may be constructed from these basic types.  These basic and
   extended types are used to construct the data model of a CBOR
   protocol.  While not required, [RFC8610] may be used to describe the
   data model of a protocol.  The types in the data model are serialized
   per [STD94] to create encoded CBOR.

   CBOR allows certain data types to be serialized in multiple ways to
   facilitate easier implementation in constrained environments.  For
   example, indefinite-length encoding enables strings, arrays, and maps
   to be streamed without knowing their length upfront.




Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


   Crucially, CBOR allows — and even expects — that some implementations
   will not support all serialization variants.  In contrast, JSON
   permits variations (e.g., representing 1 as 1, 1.0, or 0.1e1), but
   expects all parsers to handle them.  That is, the variation in JSON
   is for human readability, not to facilitate easier implementation in
   constrained environments.

Appendix B.  General Protocol Considerations for Determinism

   This is the section that covers what is know as ALDR in some
   discussions.


   // RFC Editor: Please remove above sentence before publication

   In addition to Section 4 and Appendix C, there are considerations in
   the design of any deterministic protocol.

   For a protocol to be deterministic, both the encoding (serialization)
   and data model (application) layer must be deterministic.  While
   deterministic serialization, Section 4, ensures determinism at the
   encoding layer, requirements at the application layer may also be
   necessary.

   Here’s an example application layer specification:

      At the sender’s convenience, the birth date MAY be sent either
         as an integer epoch date or string date.  The receiver MUST
         decode both formats.

   While this specification is interoperable, it lacks determinism.
   There is variability in the data model layer akin to variability in
   the CBOR encoding layer when deterministic serialization is not
   required.

   To make this example application layer specification deterministic,
   specify one date format and prohibit the other.

   A more interesting source of application layer variability comes from
   CBOR’s variety of number types.  For instance, the number 2 can be
   represented as an integer, float, big number, decimal fraction and
   other.  Most protocols designs will just specify one number type to
   use, and that will give determinism, but here’s an example
   specification that doesn’t:







Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


      At the sender’s convenience, the fluid level measurement MAY be
         encoded as an integer or a floating-point number.  This allows
         for minimal encoding size while supporting a large range.  The
         receiver MUST be able to accept both integers and floating-
         point numbers for the measurement.

   Again, this ensures interoperability but not determinism — identical
   fluid level measurements can be represented in more than one way.
   Determinism can be achieved by allowing only floating-point, though
   that doesn’t minimize encoding size.

   A better solution requires the fluid level always be encoded using
   the smallest representation for every particular value.  For example,
   a fluid level of 2 is always encoding as an integer, never as a
   floating-point number. 2.000001 is always be encoded as a floating-
   point number so as to not lose precision.  See the numeric reduction
   defined by dCBOR.

   Although this is not strictly a CBOR issue, deterministic CBOR
   protocol designers should be mindful of variability in Unicode text,
   as some characters can be encoded in multiple ways.

   While this is not an exhaustive list of application-layer
   considerations for deterministic CBOR protocols, it highlights the
   nature of variability in the data model layer and some sources of
   variability in the CBOR data model (i.e., in the application layer).

Appendix C.  Deterministic Encoding for Popular Tags

   The definitions of the following tags in [RFC8610] allow variation in
   the data mode, thus it is useful to define a deterministic encoding
   for them should a particular deterministic protocol need one.  The
   tags defined in [RFC8610] but not mentioned here have no variability
   in their data model.

C.1.  Date Strings, Tag 0

   TODO -- complete this work and remove this comment before publication

C.2.  Epoch Date, Tag 1

C.2.1.  Encoder Requirements

   If the encoder supports floating-point dates, it MUST use the integer
   representation unless one of the following applies: (1) the date is
   outside the range representable by a 64-bit integer of major type 0
   or 1, or (2) the date has a non-zero fraction of a second.  In either
   case, the floating-point representation MUST be used.



Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


C.2.2.  Decoder Requirements

   If the decoder supports floating-point dates, it MUST be able to
   decode both the integer and the floating-point representations.

C.3.  Big Numbers, Tags 2 and 3

   See Section 3.

C.4.  Big Floats and Decimal Fractions, Tags 4 and 5

C.4.1.  Encoder Requirements

   The mantissa MUST be encoded in the preferred serialization form
   specified in Section 3.4.3 of RFC 8949.

   The mantissa MUST NOT contain trailing zeros.  For example, the
   decimal fraction with value 10 must be encoded with a mantissa of 1
   and an exponent of 1.  For big floats, the mantissa must not include
   any trailing zero bits if encoded as a type 0 or 1 integer, and no
   trailing zero bytes if encoded as a big number

C.4.2.  Decoder Requirements

   Both the integer and big number forms of the mantissa MUST be
   decoded.

Appendix D.  IEEE 754 NaN

   This section provides background information on [IEEE754] NaN (Not a
   Number) and its use in CBOR.

D.1.  Basics

   [IEEE754] defines the most widely used representation for floating-
   point numbers.  It includes special values for infinity and NaN.  NaN
   was originally designed to represent the result of invalid
   computations, such as division by zero.  Although IEEE 754 intended
   NaN primarily for local computation, NaN values are sometimes
   transmitted in network protocols, and CBOR supports their
   representation.

   An IEEE 754 NaN includes a payload of up to 52 bits (depending on
   precision) whose use is not formally defined.  NaN values also
   include an unused sign bit.

   IEEE 754 distinguishes between quiet NaNs (qNaNs) and signaling NaNs
   (sNaNs):



Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


   *  A signaling NaN typically raises a floating-point exception when
      encountered.

   *  A quiet NaN does not raise an exception.

   *  The distinction is implementation-specific, but typically:

      -  The highest bit of the payload is set --> quiet NaN.

      -  Any other payload bit is set --> signaling NaN.

   *  At least one payload bit must be set for a signaling NaN to
      distinguish it from infinity.

   In this document:

   *  A "non-trivial NaN" refers to any NaN that is not a quiet NaN.

   *  A non-trivial NaN is used to carry additional, protocol-specific
      information within floating-point values.

D.2.  Implementation Support for Non-Trivial NaNs

   This section discusses the extent of programming language and CPU
   support for NaN payloads.

   Although [IEEE754] has existed for decades, support for manipulating
   non-trivial NaNs has historically been limited and inconsistent.
   Some key points:

   *  Programming languages:

      -  The programming languages C, C++, Java, Pyhton and Rust do no
         provide APIs to set or extract NaN payloads.

      -  IEEE 754 is over thirty years old, enough time for support to
         be added if there was need.

   *  CPU hardware:

      -  CPUs use the distinction between signaling and quiet NaNs to
         determine whether to raise exceptions.

      -  A non-trivial NaN matching the CPU’s signaling NaN pattern may
         either trigger an exception or be converted into a quiet NaN.

      -  Instructions converting between single and double precision
         sometimes discard or alter NaN payloads.



Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


   As a result, applications that rely on non-trivial NaNs generally
   cannot depend on CPU instructions, floating-point libraries, or
   programming environments.  Instead, they usually need their own
   software implementation of IEEE 754 to encode and decode the full bit
   patterns to reliably process non-trivial NaNs.

D.3.  Use and Non-use for Non-Trivial NaNs

   Non-trivial NaNs, excluding signaling NaNs, are not produced by
   standard floating-point operations.  They are typically created at
   the application level, where software may take advantage of unused
   bits in the NaN payload.  Such uses are rare and unusual, but they do
   exist.

   One example is the R programming language, which is designed for
   statistical computing and therefore operates heavily on numeric data.
   R uses NaN payloads to distinguish various error or missing-data
   conditions beyond standard computational exceptions such as division
   by zero.

   Another example is NaNboxing (see [NaNBoxing]), a technique used by
   some language runtimes — such as certain JavaScript engines — to
   efficiently represent multiple data types within a single 64-bit word
   by storing type tags or pointers in the NaN payload.  (CBOR can
   represent such payloads, but NaNboxed pointers are generally not
   meaningful or portable across machines, and therefore are usually
   unsuitable for network transmission or file storage.)

   CBOR’s NaN-payload support can be leveraged if data from these
   systems must be transmitted over a network or written to persistent
   storage.

   A designer of a new protocol that makes extensive use of floating-
   point values might be tempted to use NaN payloads to encode out-of-
   band information such as error conditions.  For example, NaN payloads
   could be used to distinguish situations such as sensor offline,
   sensor absent, sensor error, or sensor out of calibration.  While
   this is technically possible in CBOR, it comes with significant
   drawbacks:

   *  Ordinary and deterministic serialization cannot be used for this
      protocol.

   *  Support for NaN payloads is unreliable across programming
      environments and CBOR libraries.

   *  Values cannot be translated directly to JSON, which does not
      support NaNs of any kind.



Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


D.4.  Clarification of [STD94]

   This is a clarifying restatement of how NaNs are to be treated
   according to [STD94].

   NaNs represented in floating-point values of different lengths are
   considered equivalent in the basic generic data model if:

   *  Their sign bits are identical, and

   *  Their significands are identical after both significands are zero-
      extended on the right to 64 bits

   This equivalence is established for the entire CBOR basic generic
   data model.  A NaN encoded as half-, single-, or double-precision is
   equivalent whenever it satisfies the rules above.  This remains true
   regardless of how a CBOR library accepts, stores, or presents a NaN
   in its API.  At the application layer, the equivalence still holds.
   The only way to avoid this equivalence is by using a tag specifically
   designed to carry NaNs without these equivalence rules, since tags
   extend the data model unless otherwise specified.

   The equivalence is similar to how the floating-point value 1.0 is
   treated as the same value regardless of the precision used to encode
   it.  Some floating-point values cannot be represented in shorter
   formats (e.g., 2.0e+50 cannot be encoded in half-precision).  The
   same is true for some NaNs.

   In preferred serialization, this equivalence MUST be used to shorten
   encoding length.  If a NaN can be represented equivalently in a
   shorter form (e.g., half-precision rather than single-precision),
   then the shorter representation MUS be used.

   This equivalence also applies when floating-point values are used as
   map keys.  A map key encoded as half-precision MUST be considered a
   duplicate of one encoded as double-precision if they meet the
   equivalence rules above.

   However, this equivalence does not apply to map sorting.  Sorting
   operates on the fully encoded and serialized representation, not on
   the abstract data model.










Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


   It is Section 2 of [STD94] that establishes this equivalence by
   stating that the number of bytes used to encode a floating-point
   value is not visible in the data model.  Section 4.1 of [STD94]
   defines preferred serialization.  It requires shortest-length
   encoding of NaNs including instructions on how to do it.
   Section 5.6.1 of [STD94] describes how NaNs are treated as equivalent
   when used as map keys.  These three parts of [STD94] are consistent
   and are the basis of this restatement.

   Since Section 4.2.1 of [STD94], (Core Deterministic Encoding
   Requirements), explicitly requires preferred serialization, compliant
   deterministic encodings must use the shortest equivalent
   representation of NaNs.

   Finally, Section 4.2.2 of [STD94] discusses alternative approaches to
   deterministic encoding.  It suggests, for example, that all NaNs may
   be encoded as a half-precision quiet NaN.  This section is distinct
   from the Core Deterministic Encoding Requirements and represents an
   optional alternative for handling NaNs.

D.5.  Divergence from [STD94]

   Orindary and deterministic serialization defined in this document
   diverge from the preferred serialization requirement in [STD94] for
   shortest-length encoding of NaNs:

   *  Ordinary serialization: Non-trivial NaNs are not allowed.  While
      ordinary serialization largely aligns with preferred
      serialization, it does not in the case of non-trivial NaNs.

   *  Deterministic serialization: Because deterministic serialization
      inherits from ordinary serialization, it also does not allow non-
      trivial NaNs.  This is the single aspect of deterministic
      serialization that is different from Section 4.2.1 of [STD94].

   The divergence is justified by the following:

   *  Encoding and equivalence of non-trivial NaNs was a little unclear
      [STD94].

   *  IEEE 754 doesn't set requirements for their handling.

   *  Non-trivial NaNs are not well-supported across CPUs and
      programming environments.

   *  Implementing preferred serialization for non-trivial NaNs is
      complex and error-prone; many CBOR implementations don't support
      it or don't support it correctly.



Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


   *  Practical use cases for non-trivial NaNs are extremely rare.

   *  Reducing non-trivial NaNs to a half-precision quiet NaN is simple
      and supported by programming environments (e.g., isnan() can be
      used to detect all NaNs).

   *  Non-trivial NaNs remain supported by general serialization; the
      divergence is only for ordinary and deterministic serialization.

   *  A new CBOR tag can be defined in the future to explicitly support
      them.

D.6.  Recommendations for Use of Non-Trival NaNs

   While non-trivial NaNs are excluded from ordinary and deterministic
   serialization, they are theoretically supported by [STD94].  General
   serialization does support them.

   New protocol designs can — and generally should—avoid non — non-
   trivial NaNs.  Support for them is unreliable, and it is
   straightforward to design CBOR-based protocols that do not depend on
   them.  In many cases, the use of NaN can be replaced entirely with
   null.  JSON requires use of null as it does not support NaNs at all.

   The primary use case for non-trivial NaNs is existing systems that
   already use them.  For example, a program that relies on non-trivial
   NaNs internally may need to serialize its data to run across machines
   connected by a network.

Appendix E.  Serialization Checking

   Serialization checking rejects input which, while well-formed CBOR,
   does not conform to a particular serialization rule set it is
   enforcing.  For example, a decoder checking for deterministic
   serialization will error out if map keys are not in the required
   sorted order.  Likewise, a decoder checking for ordinary
   serialization will reject any CBOR data item that is not encoded in
   its shortest form.

   This type of checking goes beyond the basic requirement of verifying
   that input is well-formed CBOR.  The data rejected by serialization
   checking is well-formed; it is rejected because it violates
   additional serialization constraints.








Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


E.1.  Serialization Checking Use Cases

   Some applications that rely on deterministic serialization may choose
   serialization checking in order to ensure that the data they consume
   is truly deterministic and that the assumptions their logic makes
   about determinism hold.

   Some protocol environments may use serialization checking to minimize
   representational variants as a strategy to improve interoperability.
   Discouraging variants early prevents them from compounding.  See
   [RFC9413] on maintaining robust protocols.

   Serialization checking may enhance security in certain contexts, but
   such checking is never a substitute for correct and complete CBOR
   input validation.  All CBOR decoders — regardless of their
   capabilities, modes, or optional features — must always perform full
   input validation.  This includes rejecting CBOR features the decoder
   does not support.  For example, a decoder that does not support
   indefinite-length items must reject them because they are
   unsupported, not because it is acting as a checking decoder.

   Decoders that fail to perform this essential input validation are
   fundamentally inadequate and represent a security risk.  The
   appropriate remedy is to fix their input validation, not to add the
   serialization checking described here.

Appendix F.  CBOR Byte String Wrapping

   This appendix provides non-normative guidance on byte-string wrapping
   of CBOR.  It applies primarily to tag 24 and the CDDL .cbor and
   .cborseq control operators, but also to the serialization-specifying
   control operators described in Section 5.

F.1.  Purpose

   Error isolation:  Wrapping CBOR in a byte string prevents encoding
      errors in the wrapped data from causing the enclosing CBOR to fail
      during decoding.  (CBOR decoding generally halts at the first
      error and lacks internal length redundancy found in formats like
      ASN.1/DER.)

   CBOR library support for signing and hashing:  When wrapped CBOR
      needs to be signed or hashed, its original encoded bytes must be
      available.  Most CBOR libraries cannot directly extract the raw
      bytes of substructures, but byte-string wrapping provides direct
      access to the exact bytes for signing or hashing.

   Protocol embedding:  Byte-string wrapping is generally useful when



Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


      messages from one CBOR-based protocol need to be embedded within
      another CBOR protocol.

   Special map keys:  Some CBOR libraries only support simple, non-
      aggregate map keys (e.g., integers or strings).  To use complex
      data types like arrays and maps as map keys, they can be wrapped
      in a byte string.

F.2.  Wrapping Recommendations

   The serialization requirements for the wrapping CBOR may differ from
   those for the wrapped CBOR.  CBOR itself imposes no universal rule
   that they must match; this is determined by the design of the
   wrapping protocol.

   The wrapping protocol should not impose serialization requirements on
   the wrapped message.  The two should be treated as independent
   entities.  This approach avoids potential conflicts between
   serialization rules.

   For example, assume protocol XYZ wraps protocol ABC.  If protocol ABC
   requires Canonical CBOR as specified in Section 3.9 of [RFC7049]
   (e.g., [CTAP2] from WebAuthn) while protocol XYZ requires
   deterministic serialization, Section 4, a conflict would arise.

   Most CBOR data to be signed or hashed does not require a specific
   serialization.  CBOR, being a modern, fully specified, binary
   protocol, does not need canonicalization, wrapping, or armoring like
   other data representation formats such as JSON.  See the discussion
   in Section 4.3.

F.3.  CBOR Library Implementation Suggestion

   A straightforward implementation strategy is to instantiate a second
   CBOR encoder or decoder for the wrapped message.  However, this may
   be suboptimal in memory-constrained environments, as it may require
   both a duplicate copy of the wrapped data and an additional encoder/
   decoder instance.

   A more efficient approach can be for the CBOR library to treat the
   wrapped CBOR like a container (similar to arrays or maps).  Many CBOR
   implementations already handle arrays and maps as containers without
   requiring a separate instance.  Similarly, a byte-string wrapping
   encoded CBOR can be treated as a container that always contains
   exactly one item.






Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                 [Page 23]

Internet-Draft             CBOR Serialization              December 2025


Appendix G.  Examples and Test Vectors

   TODO -- complete work and remove this comment before publication

Contributors

   Rohan Mahy
   Rohan Mahy Consulting Services
   Email: rohan.ietf@gmail.com


   Joe Hildebrand
   Email: hildjj@cursive.net


   Wolf McNally
   Blockchain Commons
   Email: wolf@wolfmcnally.com


   Carsten Borman
   Universität Bremen TZI
   Email: cabo@tzi.org


   Anders Rundgren
   Email: anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com


   Vadim Goncharov
   Email: vadimnuclight@gmail.com


Author's Address

   Laurence Lundblade
   Security Theory LLC
   Email: lgl@securitytheory.com













Lundblade                  Expires 8 June 2026                 [Page 24]
