Network Working Group                                         C. Bormann
Internet-Draft                                    Universität Bremen TZI
Intended status: Informational                          22 February 2026
Expires: 26 August 2026

                   CDDL models for some existing RFCs
                 draft-bormann-cbor-rfc-cddl-models-07

Abstract

   A number of CBOR- and JSON-based protocols have been defined before
   CDDL was standardized or widely used.

   This short draft records some CDDL definitions for such protocols,
   which could become part of a library of CDDL definitions available
   for use in CDDL2 processors.  It focuses on CDDL in (almost)
   published IETF RFCs.

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-bormann-cbor-rfc-cddl-models/.

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

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/cabo/common-cddl.

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."

Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2026                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     CDDL models for some existing RFCs      February 2026

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 26 August 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  CDDL definitions for (almost) published RFCs  . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  RFC 7071 (Reputation Interchange) . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  RFC 8366 (Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping
           Protocols)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.3.  RFC 9457 (Problem Details for HTTP APIs)  . . . . . . . .   4
     2.4.  RFC 9595 (YANG-SID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.5.  Your favorite RFC here... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  CDDL definitions derived from IANA registries . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  COSE Algorithms Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  DNS Record Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Appendix A.  Example CDDL generated from registries . . . . . . .  11
   List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   (Please see abstract.)  Add in [STD94] [STD90] [RFC8610] [RFC9682]
   [RFC9165] [RFC9741]

Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2026                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft     CDDL models for some existing RFCs      February 2026

2.  CDDL definitions for (almost) published RFCs

   This section is intended to have one subsection for each CDDL data
   model presented for an existing RFC.  As a start, it is fleshed out
   with three such data models.

2.1.  RFC 7071 (Reputation Interchange)

   Appendix H of [RFC8610] contains two CDDL definitions for [RFC7071],
   which are not copied here.  Typically, the compact form would be used
   in applications using the RFC 7071 format; while the extended form
   might be useful to cherry-pick features of RFC 7071 into another
   protocol.

2.2.  RFC 8366 (Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping Protocols)

   [RFC8366] defines a data model for a "Voucher Artifact", which can be
   represented in CDDL as:

   voucher-artifact = {
     "ietf-voucher:voucher": {
       created-on: yang$date-and-time
       ? (
           expires-on: yang$date-and-time
           ? last-renewal-date: yang$date-and-time
           //
           nonce: json-binary<bytes .size (8..32)>
         )
       assertion: assertion
       serial-number: text
       ? idevid-issuer: json-binary<bytes>
       pinned-domain-cert: json-binary<bytes>
       ? domain-cert-revocation-checks: bool
     }
   }

   assertion = "verified" / "logged" / "proximity"

   yang$date-and-time = text .regexp cat3<"[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}T",
                               "[0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2}([.][0-9]+)?",
                               "(Z|[+-][0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2})">

   cat3<A,B,C> = (A .cat B) .cat C

   json-binary<T> = text .b64c T

                        Figure 1: CDDL for RFC 8366

Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2026                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft     CDDL models for some existing RFCs      February 2026

   The two examples in the RFC can be validated with this little patchup
   script:

   sed -e s/ue=/uQ=/ -e s/'"true"'/true/ | cddl rfc8366.cddl vp -

2.3.  RFC 9457 (Problem Details for HTTP APIs)

   [RFC9457] defines a simple data model that is reproduced in CDDL
   here:

   problem-object = {
     ? type: preferably-absolute-uri
     ? title: text
     ? status: 100..599
     ? detail: text
     ? instance: preferably-absolute-uri
     * text .feature "problem-object-extension" => any
   }

   ; RECOMMENDED: absolute URI or at least absolute path:
   preferably-absolute-uri = ~uri

                        Figure 2: CDDL for RFC 9457

   Note that Appendix B of [RFC9290] defines a related CBOR-specific
   data model that may be useful for tunneling [RFC7807] or [RFC9457]
   problem details in [RFC9290] Concise Problem Details.

2.4.  RFC 9595 (YANG-SID)

   [RFC9595] defines a data model for a "SID file" in YANG, to be
   transported as a YANG-JSON instance.

   An equivalent CDDL data model is given here:

   sid-file = {
     "ietf-sid-file:sid-file": {
       module-name: yang$yang-identifier
       ? module-revision: revision-identifier
       ? sid-file-version: sid-file-version-identifier
       ? sid-file-status: "unpublished" / "published"
       ? description: text
       ? dependency-revision: [* dependency-revision]
       ? assignment-range: [* assignment-range]
       ? item: [*item]
     }
   }

Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2026                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft     CDDL models for some existing RFCs      February 2026

   rep<RE>=cat3<"(", RE, ")*">
   opt<RE>=cat3<"(", RE, ")?">
   cat3<A,B,C> = (A .cat B) .cat C

   id-re = "[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9\\-_.]*"
   yang$yang-identifier = text .regexp id-re
   revision-identifier = text .regexp "[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}"
   sid-file-version-identifier = uint .size 4
   sid = text .decimal (0..0x7fffffffffffffff); uint63 as text string
   plus-id<Prefix> = Prefix .cat id-re
   schema-node-re = cat3<plus-id<"/">, plus-id<":">, ; qualified
                         rep<plus-id<"/"> .cat       ; optionally
                             opt<plus-id<":">> > >     ; qualified
   schema-node-path = text .regexp schema-node-re

   dependency-revision = {
     module-name: yang$yang-identifier
     module-revision: revision-identifier
   }

   assignment-range = {
     entry-point: sid
     size: sid
   }

   item = {
     ? status: "stable" / "unstable" / "obsolete"
     (
       namespace: "module" / "identity" / "feature"
       identifier: yang$yang-identifier
     //
       namespace: "data"
       identifier: schema-node-path
     )
     sid: sid
   }

                        Figure 3: CDDL for RFC 9595

2.5.  Your favorite RFC here...

3.  CDDL definitions derived from IANA registries

   Often, CDDL models need to use numbers that have been registered as
   values in IANA registries.

Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2026                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft     CDDL models for some existing RFCs      February 2026

   This section is intended to have one subsection for each CDDL data
   model presented that is derived from an existing IANA registry.  As a
   start, it is fleshed out with two such data models.

   The intention is that these reference modules are updated
   automatically (after each change of the registry or periodically,
   frequent enough.)  Hence, this document can only present a snapshot
   for IANA-derived data models.

   The model(s) presented here clearly are in proof-of-concept stage;
   suggestions for improvement are very welcome.

3.1.  COSE Algorithms Registry

   The IANA registry for COSE Algorithms is part of the IANA CBOR Object
   Signing and Encryption (COSE) registry group [IANA.cose].

   The following automatically derived model defines some 80 CDDL rules
   that have the name for a COSE algorithm as its rule name and the
   actual algorithm number as its right hand side.  The additional first
   rule is a type choice between all these constants; this could be used
   in places that just have to validate the presence of a COSE algorithm
   number that was registered at the time the model was derived.

   This section does not explore potential filtering of the registry
   entries, e.g., by recommended status (such as leaving out deprecated
   entries) or by capabilities.

   The names given in the COSE algorithms registry are somewhat
   irregular and do not consider their potential use in modeling or
   programming languages; the automatic derivation used here turns
   sequences of one or more spaces and other characters that cannot be
   in CDDL names ([/+] here) into underscores.

   ============= NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792 ==============

   algorithms = RS1 / A128CTR / A192CTR / A256CTR / A128CBC / \
     A192CBC / A256CBC / ESB512 / ESB384 / ESB320 / ESB256 / KT256 \
     / KT128 / TurboSHAKE256 / TurboSHAKE128 / WalnutDSA / RS512 / \
     RS384 / RS256 / Ed448 / ESP512 / ESP384 / ML-DSA-87 / ML-DSA-\
     65 / ML-DSA-44 / ES256K / HSS-LMS / SHAKE256 / SHA-512 / SHA-\
     384 / RSAES-OAEP_w_SHA-512 / RSAES-OAEP_w_SHA-256 / RSAES-\
     OAEP_w_RFC_8017_default_parameters / PS512 / PS384 / PS256 / \
     ES512 / ES384 / ECDH-SS_A256KW / ECDH-SS_A192KW / ECDH-\
     SS_A128KW / ECDH-ES_A256KW / ECDH-ES_A192KW / ECDH-ES_A128KW \
     / ECDH-SS_HKDF-512 / ECDH-SS_HKDF-256 / ECDH-ES_HKDF-512 / \
     ECDH-ES_HKDF-256 / Ed25519 / SHAKE128 / SHA-512_256 / SHA-256 \
     / SHA-256_64 / SHA-1 / direct_HKDF-AES-256 / direct_HKDF-AES-\

Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2026                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft     CDDL models for some existing RFCs      February 2026

     128 / direct_HKDF-SHA-512 / direct_HKDF-SHA-256 / ESP256 / \
     EdDSA / ES256 / direct / A256KW / A192KW / A128KW / A128GCM / \
     A192GCM / A256GCM / HMAC_256_64 / HMAC_256_256 / HMAC_384_384 \
     / HMAC_512_512 / AES-CCM-16-64-128 / AES-CCM-16-64-256 / AES-\
     CCM-64-64-128 / AES-CCM-64-64-256 / AES-MAC_128_64 / AES-\
     MAC_256_64 / ChaCha20_Poly1305 / AES-MAC_128_128 / AES-\
     MAC_256_128 / AES-CCM-16-128-128 / AES-CCM-16-128-256 / AES-\
     CCM-64-128-128 / AES-CCM-64-128-256 / IV-GENERATION
   RS1 = -65535
   A128CTR = -65534
   A192CTR = -65533
   A256CTR = -65532
   A128CBC = -65531
   A192CBC = -65530
   A256CBC = -65529
   ESB512 = -268
   ESB384 = -267
   ESB320 = -266
   ESB256 = -265
   KT256 = -264
   KT128 = -263
   TurboSHAKE256 = -262
   TurboSHAKE128 = -261
   WalnutDSA = -260
   RS512 = -259
   RS384 = -258
   RS256 = -257
   Ed448 = -53
   ESP512 = -52
   ESP384 = -51
   ML-DSA-87 = -50
   ML-DSA-65 = -49
   ML-DSA-44 = -48
   ES256K = -47
   HSS-LMS = -46
   SHAKE256 = -45
   SHA-512 = -44
   SHA-384 = -43
   RSAES-OAEP_w_SHA-512 = -42
   RSAES-OAEP_w_SHA-256 = -41
   RSAES-OAEP_w_RFC_8017_default_parameters = -40
   PS512 = -39
   PS384 = -38
   PS256 = -37
   ES512 = -36
   ES384 = -35
   ECDH-SS_A256KW = -34
   ECDH-SS_A192KW = -33

Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2026                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft     CDDL models for some existing RFCs      February 2026

   ECDH-SS_A128KW = -32
   ECDH-ES_A256KW = -31
   ECDH-ES_A192KW = -30
   ECDH-ES_A128KW = -29
   ECDH-SS_HKDF-512 = -28
   ECDH-SS_HKDF-256 = -27
   ECDH-ES_HKDF-512 = -26
   ECDH-ES_HKDF-256 = -25
   Ed25519 = -19
   SHAKE128 = -18
   SHA-512_256 = -17
   SHA-256 = -16
   SHA-256_64 = -15
   SHA-1 = -14
   direct_HKDF-AES-256 = -13
   direct_HKDF-AES-128 = -12
   direct_HKDF-SHA-512 = -11
   direct_HKDF-SHA-256 = -10
   ESP256 = -9
   EdDSA = -8
   ES256 = -7
   direct = -6
   A256KW = -5
   A192KW = -4
   A128KW = -3
   A128GCM = 1
   A192GCM = 2
   A256GCM = 3
   HMAC_256_64 = 4
   HMAC_256_256 = 5
   HMAC_384_384 = 6
   HMAC_512_512 = 7
   AES-CCM-16-64-128 = 10
   AES-CCM-16-64-256 = 11
   AES-CCM-64-64-128 = 12
   AES-CCM-64-64-256 = 13
   AES-MAC_128_64 = 14
   AES-MAC_256_64 = 15
   ChaCha20_Poly1305 = 24
   AES-MAC_128_128 = 25
   AES-MAC_256_128 = 26
   AES-CCM-16-128-128 = 30
   AES-CCM-16-128-256 = 31
   AES-CCM-64-128-128 = 32
   AES-CCM-64-128-256 = 33
   IV-GENERATION = 34

            Figure 4: Derived CDDL for COSE Algorithms Registry

Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2026                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft     CDDL models for some existing RFCs      February 2026

3.2.  DNS Record Types

   The IANA registry for DNS Record Types is part of the IANA Domain
   Name System (DNS) Parameters registry group [IANA.dns-parameters].

   Using the library [IANA-REGISTRY] and a short script (Figure 5), a
   CDDL file for the Resource Record (RR) TYPEs registered in that
   registry group can be generated (Figure 6 in Appendix A):

   require 'iana-registry'

   DNS_RR = {}

   REXML::XPath.each(IANA::Registry.load("dns-parameters").root,
       "//xmlns:registry[@id='dns-parameters-4']/xmlns:record",
       IANA::Registry::NS) do |x|
     typ = x.elements['type'].text
     value = x.elements['value'].text.to_i
     semantics = x.elements['description'].text
     if semantics && typ =~ /\A[-_A-Z0-9]+\z/
       DNS_RR[typ.gsub("-", "_")] = value
     end
   end

   puts DNS_RR.map { |t, v| "RR_#{t} = #{v}\n" }

      Figure 5: Script for deriving CDDL for the Resource Record (RR)
                      TYPEs Registry in DNS Parameters

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no requests of IANA.

   However, the use of IANA registries for deriving CDDL (e.g., as in
   Section 3) is an active subject of discussion.

5.  Security considerations

   The security considerations of [RFC8610], [RFC9682], [RFC9165],
   [RFC9741], [STD94] and [STD90] apply.  This collection of CDDL models
   is not believed to create new security considerations.  Errors in the
   models could -- if we knew of them, we'd fix those errors instead of
   explaining their security consequences in this section.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2026                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft     CDDL models for some existing RFCs      February 2026

   [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>.

   [RFC9165]  Bormann, C., "Additional Control Operators for the Concise
              Data Definition Language (CDDL)", RFC 9165,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9165, December 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9165>.

   [RFC9682]  Bormann, C., "Updates to the Concise Data Definition
              Language (CDDL) Grammar", RFC 9682, DOI 10.17487/RFC9682,
              November 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9682>.

   [RFC9741]  Bormann, C., "Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL):
              Additional Control Operators for the Conversion and
              Processing of Text", RFC 9741, DOI 10.17487/RFC9741, March
              2025, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9741>.

   [STD90]    Internet Standard 90,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std90>.
              At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following:

              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>.

   [STD94]    Internet Standard 94,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std94>.
              At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following:

              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>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [IANA-REGISTRY]
              "iana-registry | Rubygems.org",
              <https://rubygems.org/gems/iana-registry>.

   [IANA.cose]
              IANA, "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose>.

Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2026                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft     CDDL models for some existing RFCs      February 2026

   [IANA.dns-parameters]
              IANA, "Domain Name System (DNS) Parameters",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters>.

   [RFC7071]  Borenstein, N. and M. Kucherawy, "A Media Type for
              Reputation Interchange", RFC 7071, DOI 10.17487/RFC7071,
              November 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7071>.

   [RFC7807]  Nottingham, M. and E. Wilde, "Problem Details for HTTP
              APIs", RFC 7807, DOI 10.17487/RFC7807, March 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7807>.

   [RFC8366]  Watsen, K., Richardson, M., Pritikin, M., and T. Eckert,
              "A Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping Protocols",
              RFC 8366, DOI 10.17487/RFC8366, May 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8366>.

   [RFC9290]  Fossati, T. and C. Bormann, "Concise Problem Details for
              Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) APIs", RFC 9290,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9290, October 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9290>.

   [RFC9457]  Nottingham, M., Wilde, E., and S. Dalal, "Problem Details
              for HTTP APIs", RFC 9457, DOI 10.17487/RFC9457, July 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9457>.

   [RFC9595]  Veillette, M., Ed., Pelov, A., Ed., Petrov, I., Ed.,
              Bormann, C., and M. Richardson, "YANG Schema Item
              iDentifier (YANG SID)", RFC 9595, DOI 10.17487/RFC9595,
              July 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9595>.

Appendix A.  Example CDDL generated from registries

   This appendix collects examples that are too long for the main body
   of the text.

   RR_A = 1
   RR_NS = 2
   RR_MD = 3
   RR_MF = 4
   RR_CNAME = 5
   RR_SOA = 6
   RR_MB = 7
   RR_MG = 8
   RR_MR = 9
   RR_NULL = 10
   RR_WKS = 11
   RR_PTR = 12

Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2026                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft     CDDL models for some existing RFCs      February 2026

   RR_HINFO = 13
   RR_MINFO = 14
   RR_MX = 15
   RR_TXT = 16
   RR_RP = 17
   RR_AFSDB = 18
   RR_X25 = 19
   RR_ISDN = 20
   RR_RT = 21
   RR_NSAP = 22
   RR_NSAP_PTR = 23
   RR_SIG = 24
   RR_KEY = 25
   RR_PX = 26
   RR_GPOS = 27
   RR_AAAA = 28
   RR_LOC = 29
   RR_NXT = 30
   RR_EID = 31
   RR_NIMLOC = 32
   RR_SRV = 33
   RR_ATMA = 34
   RR_NAPTR = 35
   RR_KX = 36
   RR_CERT = 37
   RR_A6 = 38
   RR_DNAME = 39
   RR_SINK = 40
   RR_OPT = 41
   RR_APL = 42
   RR_DS = 43
   RR_SSHFP = 44
   RR_IPSECKEY = 45
   RR_RRSIG = 46
   RR_NSEC = 47
   RR_DNSKEY = 48
   RR_DHCID = 49
   RR_NSEC3 = 50
   RR_NSEC3PARAM = 51
   RR_TLSA = 52
   RR_SMIMEA = 53
   RR_HIP = 55
   RR_NINFO = 56
   RR_RKEY = 57
   RR_TALINK = 58
   RR_CDS = 59
   RR_CDNSKEY = 60
   RR_OPENPGPKEY = 61

Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2026                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft     CDDL models for some existing RFCs      February 2026

   RR_CSYNC = 62
   RR_ZONEMD = 63
   RR_SVCB = 64
   RR_HTTPS = 65
   RR_DSYNC = 66
   RR_HHIT = 67
   RR_BRID = 68
   RR_EUI48 = 108
   RR_EUI64 = 109
   RR_NXNAME = 128
   RR_TKEY = 249
   RR_TSIG = 250
   RR_IXFR = 251
   RR_AXFR = 252
   RR_MAILB = 253
   RR_MAILA = 254
   RR_URI = 256
   RR_CAA = 257
   RR_AVC = 258
   RR_DOA = 259
   RR_AMTRELAY = 260
   RR_RESINFO = 261
   RR_WALLET = 262
   RR_CLA = 263
   RR_IPN = 264
   RR_TA = 32768
   RR_DLV = 32769

         Figure 6: Derived CDDL for the Resource Record (RR) TYPEs
                         Registry in DNS Parameters

List of Figures

   Figure 1:  CDDL for RFC 8366
   Figure 2:  CDDL for RFC 9457
   Figure 3:  CDDL for RFC 9595
   Figure 4:  Derived CDDL for COSE Algorithms Registry
   Figure 5:  Script for deriving CDDL for the Resource Record (RR)
              TYPEs Registry in DNS Parameters
   Figure 6:  Derived CDDL for the Resource Record (RR) TYPEs Registry
              in DNS Parameters

Acknowledgements

   TBD

Author's Address

Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2026                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft     CDDL models for some existing RFCs      February 2026

   Carsten Bormann
   Universität Bremen TZI
   Postfach 330440
   D-28359 Bremen
   Germany
   Phone: +49-421-218-63921
   Email: cabo@tzi.org

Bormann                  Expires 26 August 2026                [Page 14]