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.¶
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
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9485.¶
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
(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.¶
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 [STD63] for interchange).¶
I-Regexp is a subset of XML Schema Definition (XSD) regular expressions [XSD-2].¶
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 [JSONPATH-BASE], but was unable to find a useful
specification for regular expressions that would be interoperable across the popular libraries.¶
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 [UNICODE-GLOSSARY].¶
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 [RFC2119][RFC8174]
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 [RFC5234] and [RFC7405], where the "characters" of
Section 2.3 of [RFC5234] are Unicode scalar values.¶
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 Section 5.¶
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 ^.¶
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.¶
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 Section 5. 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.¶
This syntax is a subset of that of [XSD-2].
Implementations that interpret I-Regexps MUST
yield Boolean results as specified in [XSD-2].
(See also Section 5.2.)¶
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.¶
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 Table 1.¶
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].¶
Any I-Regexp is also an XSD regexp [XSD-2], so the mapping is an identity
function.¶
Note that a few errata for [XSD-2] have been fixed in [XSD-1.1-2]; therefore, it
is also included in the Normative References (Section 9.1).
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.¶
To obtain a valid regexp in Perl Compatible Regular Expressions
(PCRE) [PCRE2], the Go programming language's RE2 regexp library [RE2], and the Ruby
programming language, perform the same steps as in Section 5.3, except that the last step is:¶
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.¶
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.¶
While technically out of the scope of this specification, Section 10 ("Security Considerations") of RFC 3629 [STD63] applies to implementations.
Particular note needs to be taken of the last paragraph of Section 3 ("UTF-8 definition" ) of RFC 3629 [STD63]; an I-Regexp implementation may need to
mitigate limitations of the platform implementation in this regard.¶
As discussed in Section 6, 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 Section 3.1) 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., [RE2]). 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 Section 5), 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.¶
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5234]
Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[XSD-1.1-2]
Peterson, D., Ed., Gao, S., Ed., Malhotra, A., Ed., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., Ed., Thompson, H., Ed., and P. Biron, Ed., "W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 2: Datatypes", W3C REC REC-xmlschema11-2-20120405, W3C REC-xmlschema11-2-20120405, , <https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-xmlschema11-2-20120405/>.
"RE2 is a fast, safe, thread-friendly alternative to backtracking regular expression engines like those used in PCRE, Perl, and Python. It is a C++ library.", commit 73031bb, <https://github.com/google/re2>.
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.¶
You are visitor 01402503 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up. Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.