RFCs should provide executable test suites

Recently, I implemented xCal and xCard formats inside the sabre/dav libraries. While testing the different RFCs against my implementation, several errata have been found. This article, first, quickly list them and, second, ask questions about how such errors can be present and how they can be easily revealed. If reading my dry humor about RFC errata is boring, the Sections 3, 4 and 5 are more interesting. The whole idea is: Why RFCs do not provide executable test suites?

What is xCal and xCard?

The Web is a read-only media. It is based on the HTTP protocol. However, there is the WebDAV protocol, standing for Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning. This is an extension to HTTP. Et voilà ! The Web is a read and write media. WebDAV is standardized in RFC2518 and RFC4918.

Based on WebDAV, we have CalDAV and CardDAV, respectively for reading and writing calendars and addressbooks. They are standardized in RFC4791, RFC6638 and RFC6352. Good! But these protocols only explain how to read and write, not how to represent a real calendar or an addressbook. So let’s leave protocols for formats.

The iCalendar format represents calendar events, like events (VEVENT), tasks (VTODO), journal entry (VJOURNAL, very rare…), free/busy time (VFREEBUSY) etc. The vCard format represents cards. The formats are very similar and share a common ancestry: This is a horrible line-, colon- and semicolon-, randomly-escaped based format. For instance:

PRODID:-//Example Inc.//Example Calendar//EN
SUMMARY:Planning meeting

Horrible, yes. You were warned. These formats are standardized in several RFCs, to list some of them: RFC5545, RFC2426 and RFC6350.

This format is impossible to read, even for a computer. That’s why we have jCal and jCard, which are respectively another representation of iCalendar and vCard but in JSON. JSON is quite popular in the Web today, especially because it eases the manipulation and exchange of data in Javascript. This is just a very simple, and —from my point of view— human readable, serialization format. jCal and jCard are respectively standardized in RFC7265 and RFC7095. Thus, the equivalent of the previous iCalendar example in jCal is:

        ["version", {}, "text", "2.0"],
        ["calscale", {}, "text", "GREGORIAN"],
        ["prodid", {}, "text", "-\/\/Example Inc.\/\/Example Calendar\/\/EN"]
                ["dtstamp", {}, "date-time", "2008-02-05T19:12:24Z"],
                ["dtstart", {}, "date", "2008-10-06"],
                ["summary", {}, "text", "Planning meeting"],
                ["uid", {}, "text", "4088E990AD89CB3DBB484909"]

Much better. But this is JSON, which is a rather loose format, so we also have xCal and xCard another representation of iCalendar and vCard but in XML. They are standardized in RFC6321 and RFC6351. The same example in xCal looks like this:

<icalendar xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:icalendar-2.0">
    <text>-//Example Inc.//Example Calendar//ENtext>
      <text>Planning meetingtext>

More semantics, more meaning, easier to read (from my point of view), namespaces… It is very easy to embed xCal and xCard inside other XML formats.

Managing all these formats is an extremely laborious task. I suggest you to take a look at sabre/vobject (see the Github repository of sabre/vobject). This is a PHP library to manage all the weird formats. The following example shows how to read from iCalendar and write to jCal and xCal:

// Read iCalendar.
$document = Sabre\VObject\Reader::read($icalendar);

// Write jCal.
echo Sabre\VObject\Writer::writeJson($document);

// Write xCal.
echo Sabre\VObject\Writer::writeXml($document);

Magic when you know the complexity of these formats (in both term of parsing and validation)!

List of errata

Now, let’s talk about all the errata I submited recently:

The 2 last ones are reported, not yet verified.

4241, 4243 and 4246 are just typos in examples. “just” is a bit of an under-statement when you are reading RFCs for days straight, you have 10 of them opened in your browser and trying to figure out how everything fits together and if you are doing everything correctly. Finding typos at that point in your process can be very confusing…

4247 is more subtle. The RFC about xCard comes with an XML Schema. That’s great! It will help us to test our documents and see if they are valid or not! No? No.

Most of the time, I try to relax and deal with the incoming problems. But the date and time format in iCalendar, vCard, jCal, jCard, xCal and xCard can make my blood boil in a second. In what world, exactly, --10 or ---28 is a conceivable date and time format? How long did I sleep? “Well” — was I saying to myself, “do not make a drama, we have the XML Schema!”. No. Because there is an error in the schema. More precisely, in a regular expression:

value-time = element time {
    xsd:string { pattern = "(\d\d(\d\d(\d\d)?)?|-\d\d(\d\d?)|--\d\d)"
                         ~ "(Z|[+\-]\d\d(\d\d)?)?" }

Did you find the error? (\d\d?) is invalid, this is (\d\d)?. Don’t get me wrong: Everyone makes mistakes, but not this kind of error. I will explain why in the next section.

4245 is not an editorial error but a technical one, under review.

4261 is crazy. It deserves a whole sub-section.

Welcome in the crazy world of date and time formats

There are two major popular date and time format: RFC2822 and ISO.8601. Examples:

  • Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:06:58 +0100 and
  • 2015-02-27T16:07:16+01:00.

The second one is a good candidate for a computer representation: no locale, only digits, all information are present…

Maybe you noticed there is no link on ISO.8601. Why? Because ISO standards are not free and I don’t want to pay 140€ to buy a standard…

The date and time format adopted by iCalendar and vCard (and the rest of the family) is ISO.8601.2004. I cannot read it. However, since we said in xCard we have an XML Schema; we can read this (after having applied erratum 4247):

# 4.3.1
value-date = element date {
    xsd:string { pattern = "\d{8}|\d{4}-\d\d|--\d\d(\d\d)?|---\d\d" }

# 4.3.2
value-time = element time {
    xsd:string { pattern = "(\d\d(\d\d(\d\d)?)?|-\d\d(\d\d)?|--\d\d)"
                         ~ "(Z|[+\-]\d\d(\d\d)?)?" }

# 4.3.3
value-date-time = element date-time {
    xsd:string { pattern = "(\d{8}|--\d{4}|---\d\d)T\d\d(\d\d(\d\d)?)?"
                         ~ "(Z|[+\-]\d\d(\d\d)?)?" }

# 4.3.4
value-date-and-or-time = value-date | value-date-time | value-time

Question: --10 is October or 10 seconds?

--10 can fit into value-date and value-time:

  • From value-date, the 3rd element in the disjunction is --\d\d(\d\d)?, so it matches --10,
  • From value-time, the last element in the first disjunction is --\d\d, so it matches --10.

If we have a date-and-or-time value, value-date comes first, so --10 is always October. Nevertheless, if we have a time value, --10 is 10 seconds. Crazy now?

Oh, and XML has its own date and time format, which is well-defined and standardized. Why should we drag this crazy format along?

Oh, and I assume every format depending on ISO.8601.2004 has this bug. But I am not sure because ISO standards are not free.

How can RFCs have such errors?

So far, RFCs are textual standards. Great. But they are just text. Written by humans, and thus they are subject to errors or failures. It is even error-prone. I do not understand: Why an RFC does not come with an executable test suite? I am pretty sure every reader of an RFC will try to create a test suite on its own.

I assume xCal and xCard formats are not yet very popular. Consequently, few people read the RFC and tried to write an implementation. This is my guess. However, it does not avoid the fact an executable test suite should (must?) be provided.

How did I find them?

This is how I found these errors. I wrote a test suite for xCal and xCard in sabre/vobject. I would love to write a test suite agnostic of the implementation, but I ran out of time. This is basically format transformation: R:xy where R can be a reflexive operator or not (depending of the versions of iCalendar and vCard we consider).

For “simple“ errata, I found the errors by testing it manually. For errata 4247 and 4261 (with the regular expressions), I found the error by applying the algorithms presented in Generate strings based on regular expressions.


sabre/vobject supports xCal and xCard.

2 thoughts on “RFCs should provide executable test suites

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s