Benchmarks are from initial proof-of-concept CCF codec. We should update benchmarks and comparisons with a reminder that we are not comparing apples to apples.

Prior formats (CBF and JSON-Cadence Data Interchange) didn't specify requirements for validity, sorting, etc.

Sorting data, deterministic encoding, etc. are not free.

We now explicitly specify nullable types starting with PR #75.

• Remove null as an option for type-value.

• Specify null as an option for capability-type-value and restricted-type-value.

• Add valid requirement for unique name in function-type.type-parameters.

Thanks @turbolent for great suggestions during our discussions on Slack and for opening PR 75!

For example, make it clear that CCF-based protocols and data formats must use a deterministic sequence when encoding more than one Cadence composite type.

Thanks @turbolent for suggesting we add CDDL validation to CI.

The specification should be explicit about invalid UTF-8 strings.

My preference is to reject invalid UTF-8 text strings. However, there may be edge cases I'm not aware of, so confirm with Cadence team first before adding text.

Some changes to specs are required:

• Update composite-type-value.initializers from "one or many" to "zero or one" since only one initializer is supported and sorting is hard for multiple initializers.

• Remove deterministic sorting requirement for composite-type-value.initializers since only one initializer is supported and initializer parameters have natural sorting and shouldn't be changed.

Thanks @turbolent for great discussion and suggesting this today!

Add a section to specify restrictions on CCF messages.

Problem

The CDDL section of CCF specs were updated and some of the examples no longer match the updated CDDL.

Suggestion

Update CCF examples in the specs to match the updated definitions in CDDL notation.

Also, add more examples and confirm they are all in sync with CCF Codec (PR 2364) merged to onflow/cadence on April 13, 2023.

Problem

In JSON-CDC, sometimes cadence-type-id was encoded when it was just a "stringification" of other encoded data and not necessary to encode.

In CCF, we don't need to keep this inefficiency for the sake of compatibility.

Thanks @turbolent for spotting this! 👍

Proposed Solution

Remove the inefficiency by removing unnecessary cadence-type-id from

• restricted-type-value
• restricted-type
• function-value

CCF specs should be updated to:

• Allow type of restricted-type to be null.
• Allow borrow-type of capability-type to be null.

Mention decoding limits can be stricter for untrusted inputs and less strict for trusted inputs. For example, CBOR limits such as MaxArrayElements, MaxMapPairs, and MaxNestedLevels can be set differently for decoders processing trusted and untrusted inputs. CCF-based protocols can also specify different limits to balance tradeoffs.

The main tradeoff for decoder limits:

• too high will allow memory exhaustion attacks, etc. to succeed.
• too low will create the possibility of being unable to decode a non-malicious message that exceeds limits.
  NOTE: Encoders usually don't enforce limits because it's much simpler and more efficient for apps to enforce it.

Example Limit for Max Array Elements

A GRPC limit of 20 MB can support (at most) a 20,000,000 element array (for an unrealistic message with zero-overhead and 1 byte elements).

In practice, it would take many thousands of non-malicious CCF messages (like average-sized events) to reach a 20 MB GRPC limit, so it doesn't make sense to allow more than 20,000,000 elements for each array within a single CCF message.

This update to CCF specs can be done after opening PR to add CCF Codec to onflow/cadence and before CCF Specs RC2.

Cadence recently added type-parameters to function-value. Update CCF to support it.

Add simple-type-id in CDDL (around 105 lines).

This requires Cadence to add static type for Cadence external PathLink value.

Relies on onflow/cadence#2167

In CDDL, uint-value, uint128-value, and uint256-value should have .ge 0.

The current status and timeline is outdated. Also, the introduction can be improved by copying this Introduction section from the CCF specification:

Introduction

Cadence external values (e.g. transaction arguments, events, etc.) have been encoded using JSON-Cadence Data Interchange format, which is human-readable, verbose, and doesn't define deterministic encoding.

CCF is a binary data format that allows more compact, efficient, and deterministic encoding of Cadence external values. Consequently, the CCF codec in Cadence is faster, uses less memory, encodes deterministically, and produces smaller messages than the JSON-CDC codec.

A real FeesDeducted event can encode to:

• 298 bytes in JSON-CDC (minified).
• 118 bytes in CCF (fully self-describing mode).
• ~20 bytes in CCF (partially self-describing mode) with 12 bytes for data and ~8 bytes for type id (counter, hash, etc.)

Unlike prior formats, CCF defines all requirements for deterministic encoding (sort orders, smallest encoded forms, and Cadence-specific requirements) to allow CCF codecs implemented in different programming languages to deterministically produce identical messages.

For security, CCF was designed to allow efficient detection and rejection of malformed messages without creating Cadence objects. This allows more costly checks (e.g. validity) to be performed only on well-formed messages.

CCF leverages vendor-neutral Internet Standards such as CBOR (RFC 8949), which is designed to be relevant for decades.

[cadence_value] should be [*cadence_value], representing array of zero or more encoded Cadence simple values.

CCF uses CBOR Preferred Serialization to encode values to their smallest form.

Describe canonical encoding at a higher level than CBOR (CCF level).

Problem

Currently, we don't have global CCF type id. So CCF type id is scoped to the value it describes.

Proposed Solution

We can define a top level CCF message that combines CCF type definitions with the value it describes. This solution can be used before we support global CCF type id.

The following improvements were identified by reading Cadence Core Contracts with CCF specs and codec in mind.

More types need to be added in CDDL:

• struct interface type
• resource interface type
• contract interface type
• reference type
• restricted type

Reassign tag numbers to reserve some tag numbers in each (sub)group.

Add interface types as options to ccf-composite-type-message. This is more extensible than using simple type at the cost of encoding a little more data.

Add reference and restricted types as options to inline-type.

Add support for function value.

Refactor CDDL to separate type objects from type value objects for readability and cleaner implementation.

Make the CBOR tag numbers in the CDDL match the CCF codec.

I have some pending updates to CCF text and CDDL that should be merged before the CCF Spec is hosted at onflow/ccf repo.

• Update text
  • Abstract
  • Scope
  • Introduction
  • Why CBOR
    • top half
    • "Interoperability and Reuse of CBOR Codecs"
• Update CDDL to be in sync with CCF Codec
• tag RC2

More info:

• onflow/cadence#2157
• onflow/cadence#2379

Update Why CBOR section's mention of fxamacker/cbor to:

• Remove adjectives about it.
• Mention and link to CCF codec in Cadence.
• Mention and link to a nonconfidential security assessment (NCC Group for Microsoft Corporation).
• Update usage stats because GitHub shows stats for v1 (obsolete version nobody should be using anymore).

Thanks @turbolent for suggesting we use https://github.com/anweiss/cddl to check CDDL in PR #10.

The capability-type in CDDL shouldn't be an array.

CI takes too long because compiling Rust programs takes too long.

Optimize by downloading, verifying checksum, and running precompiled cddl program to avoid building it.

The findings are primarily from onflow/flow-go#3448 and some of its text can be reused here. Some of the content under Interoperability and Reuse and also be moved into Why CBOR.

Thanks @turbolent for the suggestion to add this section.

The value definition is incomplete in this block because it is missing composite value.

CCF_TypeAndValue_Message = #6.CBORTagTypeAndValue([
	type: CCF_InlineTypeInfo, 
	value: cadence_value / [cadence_value]
])

CBOR is a modern alternative to earlier data formats such as JSON, GOB, MessagePack, etc. Some comparisons between CBOR and other binary formats were published by IETF:

• RFC 8949 CBOR, Appendix E: Comparison of Other Binary Formats to CBOR's Design Objectives
• RFC 8618 Compacted-DNS, Appendix C: Comparison of Binary Formats

Besides CBOR Core Deterministic Encoding Requirements, etc. there are additional requirements for CCF deterministic encoding requirements which are defined in this specification.

Currently, the bullet point only mentions the deterministic requirements from CBOR's RFC 8949.