Universität Bremen TZI

Postfach 330440 Bremen D-28359 Germany +49-421-218-63921 cabo@tzi.org

Textuality

Canada tbray@textuality.com

art jsonpath Regexp Regex This document specifies I-Regexp, a flavor of regular expression that is limited in scope with the goal of interoperation across many different regular expression libraries.

Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at .

Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2023 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 () 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

• .  Introduction
  • .  Terminology
• .  Objectives
• .  I-Regexp Syntax
  • .  Checking Implementations
• .  I-Regexp Semantics
• .  Mapping I-Regexp to Regexp Dialects
  • .  Multi-Character Escapes
  • .  XSD Regexps
  • .  ECMAScript Regexps
  • .  PCRE, RE2, and Ruby Regexps
• .  Motivation and Background
  • .  Implementing I-Regexp
• .  IANA Considerations
• .  Security Considerations
• .  References
  • .  Normative References
  • .  Informative References
• Acknowledgements
• Authors' Addresses

Introduction This specification describes an interoperable regular expression (abbreviated as "regexp") flavor, I-Regexp. I-Regexp does not provide advanced regular expression features such as capture groups, lookahead, or backreferences. It supports only a Boolean matching capability, i.e., testing whether a given regular expression matches a given piece of text. I-Regexp supports the entire repertoire of Unicode characters (Unicode scalar values); both the I-Regexp strings themselves and the strings they are matched against are sequences of Unicode scalar values (often represented in UTF-8 encoding form for interchange). I-Regexp is a subset of XML Schema Definition (XSD) regular expressions . This document includes guidance for converting I-Regexps for use with several well-known regular expression idioms. The development of I-Regexp was motivated by the work of the JSONPath Working Group (WG). The WG wanted to include support for the use of regular expressions in JSONPath filters in its specification , but was unable to find a useful specification for regular expressions that would be interoperable across the popular libraries.

Terminology This document uses the abbreviation "regexp" for what is usually called a "regular expression" in programming. The term "I-Regexp" is used as a noun meaning a character string (sequence of Unicode scalar values) that conforms to the requirements in this specification; the plural is "I-Regexps". This specification uses Unicode terminology; a good entry point is provided by . The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. The grammatical rules in this document are to be interpreted as ABNF, as described in and , where the "characters" of are Unicode scalar values.

Objectives I-Regexps should handle the vast majority of practical cases where a matching regexp is needed in a data-model specification or a query-language expression. At the time of writing, an editor of this document conducted a survey of the regexp syntax used in recently published RFCs. All examples found there should be covered by I-Regexps, both syntactically and with their intended semantics. The exception is the use of multi-character escapes, for which workaround guidance is provided in .

I-Regexp Syntax An I-Regexp MUST conform to the ABNF specification in .

I-Regexp Syntax in ABNF i-regexp = branch *( "|" branch ) branch = *piece piece = atom [ quantifier ] quantifier = ( "*" / "+" / "?" ) / range-quantifier range-quantifier = "{" QuantExact [ "," [ QuantExact ] ] "}" QuantExact = 1*%x30-39 ; '0'-'9' atom = NormalChar / charClass / ( "(" i-regexp ")" ) NormalChar = ( %x00-27 / "," / "-" / %x2F-3E ; '/'-'>' / %x40-5A ; '@'-'Z' / %x5E-7A ; '^'-'z' / %x7E-D7FF ; skip surrogate code points / %xE000-10FFFF ) charClass = "." / SingleCharEsc / charClassEsc / charClassExpr SingleCharEsc = "\" ( %x28-2B ; '('-'+' / "-" / "." / "?" / %x5B-5E ; '['-'^' / %s"n" / %s"r" / %s"t" / %x7B-7D ; '{'-'}' ) charClassEsc = catEsc / complEsc charClassExpr = "[" [ "^" ] ( "-" / CCE1 ) *CCE1 [ "-" ] "]" CCE1 = ( CCchar [ "-" CCchar ] ) / charClassEsc CCchar = ( %x00-2C / %x2E-5A ; '.'-'Z' / %x5E-D7FF ; skip surrogate code points / %xE000-10FFFF ) / SingleCharEsc catEsc = %s"\p{" charProp "}" complEsc = %s"\P{" charProp "}" charProp = IsCategory IsCategory = Letters / Marks / Numbers / Punctuation / Separators / Symbols / Others Letters = %s"L" [ ( %s"l" / %s"m" / %s"o" / %s"t" / %s"u" ) ] Marks = %s"M" [ ( %s"c" / %s"e" / %s"n" ) ] Numbers = %s"N" [ ( %s"d" / %s"l" / %s"o" ) ] Punctuation = %s"P" [ ( %x63-66 ; 'c'-'f' / %s"i" / %s"o" / %s"s" ) ] Separators = %s"Z" [ ( %s"l" / %s"p" / %s"s" ) ] Symbols = %s"S" [ ( %s"c" / %s"k" / %s"m" / %s"o" ) ] Others = %s"C" [ ( %s"c" / %s"f" / %s"n" / %s"o" ) ]

As an additional restriction, charClassExpr is not allowed to match [^], which, according to this grammar, would parse as a positive character class containing the single character ^. This is essentially an XSD regexp without:

• character class subtraction,
• multi-character escapes such as \s, \S, and \w, and
• Unicode blocks.

An I-Regexp implementation MUST be a complete implementation of this limited subset. In particular, full support for the Unicode functionality defined in this specification is REQUIRED. The implementation:

• MUST NOT limit itself to 7- or 8-bit character sets such as ASCII, and
• MUST support the Unicode character property set in character classes.

Checking Implementations A checking I-Regexp implementation is one that checks a supplied regexp for compliance with this specification and reports any problems. Checking implementations give their users confidence that they didn't accidentally insert syntax that is not interoperable, so checking is RECOMMENDED. Exceptions to this rule may be made for low-effort implementations that map I-Regexp to another regexp library by simple steps such as performing the mapping operations discussed in . Here, the effort needed to do full checking might dwarf the rest of the implementation effort. Implementations SHOULD document whether or not they are checking. Specifications that employ I-Regexp may want to define in which cases their implementations can work with a non-checking I-Regexp implementation and when full checking is needed, possibly in the process of defining their own implementation classes.

I-Regexp Semantics This syntax is a subset of that of . Implementations that interpret I-Regexps MUST yield Boolean results as specified in . (See also .)

Mapping I-Regexp to Regexp Dialects The material in this section is not normative; it is provided as guidance to developers who want to use I-Regexps in the context of other regular expression dialects.

Multi-Character Escapes I-Regexp does not support common multi-character escapes (MCEs) and character classes built around them. These can usually be replaced as shown by the examples in . Example Substitutes for Multi-Character Escapes

MCE/class:	Replace with:
\S	[^ \t\n\r]
[\S ]	[^\t\n\r]
\d	[0-9]

Note that the semantics of \d in XSD regular expressions is that of \p{Nd}; however, this would include all Unicode characters that are digits in various writing systems, which is almost certainly not what is required in IETF publications. The construct \p{IsBasicLatin} is essentially a reference to legacy ASCII; it can be replaced by the character class [\u0000-\u007f].

XSD Regexps Any I-Regexp is also an XSD regexp , so the mapping is an identity function. Note that a few errata for have been fixed in ; therefore, it is also included in the Normative References. XSD 1.1 is less widely implemented than XSD 1.0, and implementations of XSD 1.0 are likely to include these bugfixes; for the intents and purposes of this specification, an implementation of XSD 1.0 regexps is equivalent to an implementation of XSD 1.1 regexps.

ECMAScript Regexps Perform the following steps on an I-Regexp to obtain an ECMAScript regexp :

• For any unescaped dots (.) outside character classes (first alternative of charClass production), replace the dot with [^\n\r].
• Envelope the result in ^(?: and )$.

The ECMAScript regexp is to be interpreted as a Unicode pattern ("u" flag; see Section 21.2.2 "Pattern Semantics" of ). Note that where a regexp literal is required, the actual regexp needs to be enclosed in /.

PCRE, RE2, and Ruby Regexps To obtain a valid regexp in Perl Compatible Regular Expressions (PCRE) , the Go programming language's RE2 regexp library , and the Ruby programming language, perform the same steps as in , except that the last step is:

• Enclose the regexp in \A(?: and )\z.

Motivation and Background While regular expressions originally were intended to describe a formal language to support a Boolean matching function, they have been enhanced with parsing functions that support the extraction and replacement of arbitrary portions of the matched text. With this accretion of features, parsing-regexp libraries have become more susceptible to bugs and surprising performance degradations that can be exploited in denial-of-service attacks by an attacker who controls the regexp submitted for processing. I-Regexp is designed to offer interoperability and to be less vulnerable to such attacks, with the trade-off that its only function is to offer a Boolean response as to whether a character sequence is matched by a regexp.

Implementing I-Regexp XSD regexps are relatively easy to implement or map to widely implemented parsing-regexp dialects, with these notable exceptions:

• Character class subtraction. This is a very useful feature in many specifications, but it is unfortunately mostly absent from parsing-regexp dialects. Thus, it is omitted from I-Regexp.
• Multi-character escapes. \d, \w, \s and their uppercase complement classes exhibit a large amount of variation between regexp flavors. Thus, they are omitted from I-Regexp.
• Not all regexp implementations support access to Unicode tables that enable executing constructs such as \p{Nd}, although the \p/\P feature in general is now quite widely available. While, in principle, it is possible to translate these into character-class matches, this also requires access to those tables. Thus, regexp libraries in severely constrained environments may not be able to support I-Regexp conformance.

IANA Considerations This document has no IANA actions.

Security Considerations While technically out of the scope of this specification, Section "Security Considerations" of RFC 3629 applies to implementations. Particular note needs to be taken of the last paragraph of Section "UTF-8 definition" of RFC 3629 ; an I-Regexp implementation may need to mitigate limitations of the platform implementation in this regard. As discussed in , more complex regexp libraries may contain exploitable bugs, which can lead to crashes and remote code execution. There is also the problem that such libraries often have performance characteristics that are hard to predict, leading to attacks that overload an implementation by matching against an expensive attacker-controlled regexp. I-Regexps have been designed to allow implementation in a way that is resilient to both threats; this objective needs to be addressed throughout the implementation effort. Non-checking implementations (see ) are likely to expose security limitations of any regexp engine they use, which may be less problematic if that engine has been built with security considerations in mind (e.g., ). In any case, a checking implementation is still RECOMMENDED. Implementations that specifically implement the I-Regexp subset can, with care, be designed to generally run in linear time and space in the input and to detect when that would not be the case (see below). Existing regexp engines should be able to easily handle most I-Regexps (after the adjustments discussed in ), but may consume excessive resources for some types of I-Regexps or outright reject them because they cannot guarantee efficient execution. (Note that different versions of the same regexp library may be more or less vulnerable to excessive resource consumption for these cases.) Specifically, range quantifiers (as in a{2,4}) provide particular challenges for both existing and I-Regexp focused implementations. Implementations may therefore limit range quantifiers in composability (disallowing nested range quantifiers such as (a{2,4}){2,4}) or range (disallowing very large ranges such as a{20,200000}), or detect and reject any excessive resource consumption caused by range quantifiers. I-Regexp implementations that are used to evaluate regexps from untrusted sources need to be robust in these cases. Implementers using existing regexp libraries are encouraged:

• to check their documentation to see if mitigations are configurable, such as limits in resource consumption, and
• to document their own degree of robustness resulting from employing such mitigations.

References Normative References In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Internet technical specifications often need to define a formal syntax. Over the years, a modified version of Backus-Naur Form (BNF), called Augmented BNF (ABNF), has been popular among many Internet specifications. The current specification documents ABNF. It balances compactness and simplicity with reasonable representational power. The differences between standard BNF and ABNF involve naming rules, repetition, alternatives, order-independence, and value ranges. This specification also supplies additional rule definitions and encoding for a core lexical analyzer of the type common to several Internet specifications. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document extends the base definition of ABNF (Augmented Backus-Naur Form) to include a way to specify US-ASCII string literals that are matched in a case-sensitive manner. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. Informative References Ecma International Standard ECMA-262, 11th Edition Fachhochschule Dortmund Universität Bremen TZI Work in Progress commit 73031bb I-JSON (short for "Internet JSON") is a restricted profile of JSON designed to maximize interoperability and increase confidence that software can process it successfully with predictable results. ISO/IEC 10646-1 defines a large character set called the Universal Character Set (UCS) which encompasses most of the world's writing systems. The originally proposed encodings of the UCS, however, were not compatible with many current applications and protocols, and this has led to the development of UTF-8, the object of this memo. UTF-8 has the characteristic of preserving the full US-ASCII range, providing compatibility with file systems, parsers and other software that rely on US-ASCII values but are transparent to other values. This memo obsoletes and replaces RFC 2279. Unicode, Inc.

Acknowledgements Discussion in the IETF JSONPATH WG about whether to include a regexp mechanism into the JSONPath query expression specification and previous discussions about the YANG pattern and Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) .regexp features motivated this specification. The basic approach for this specification was inspired by "" .

Authors' Addresses Universität Bremen TZI

Postfach 330440 Bremen D-28359 Germany +49-421-218-63921 cabo@tzi.org

Textuality

Canada tbray@textuality.com