7.1 Presentation Formatting

One of the most common transformations of network data is from the representation used by the application program into a form that is suitable for transmission over a network and vice versa. This transformation is typically called presentation formatting. As illustrated in Figure 1, the sending program translates the data it wants to transmit from the representation it uses internally into a message that can be transmitted over the network; that is, the data is encoded in a message. On the receiving side, the application translates this arriving message into a representation that it can then process; that is, the message is decoded. Encoding is sometimes called argument marshalling, and decoding is sometimes called unmarshalling. This terminology comes from the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) world, where the client thinks it is invoking a procedure with a set of arguments, but these arguments are then "brought together and ordered in an appropriate and effective way" to form a network message.

Presentation formatting involves encoding and decoding application data.

You might ask what makes this problem challenging enough to warrant a name like marshalling. One reason is that computers represent data in different ways. For example, some computers represent floating-point numbers in IEEE standard 754 format, while some older machines still use their own nonstandard format. Even for something as simple as integers, different architectures use different sizes (e.g., 16-bit, 32-bit, 64-bit). To make matters worse, on some machines integers are represented in big-endian form (the most significant bit of a word is in the byte with the highest address), while on other machines integers are represented in little-endian form (the most significant bit is in the byte with the lowest address). For example, PowerPC processors are big-endian machines, and the Intel x86 family is a little-endian architecture. Today, many architectures support both representations (and so are called bi-endian), but the point is that you can never be sure how the host you are communicating with stores integers. The big-endian and little-endian representations of the integer 34,677,374 are given in Figure 2.

Big-endian and little-endian byte order for the integer 34,677,374

Another reason that marshalling is difficult is that application programs are written in different languages, and even when you are using a single language there may be more than one compiler. For example, compilers have a fair amount of latitude in how they lay out structures (records) in memory, such as how much padding they put between the fields that make up the structure. Thus, you could not simply transmit a structure from one machine to another, even if both machines were of the same architecture and the program was written in the same language, because the compiler on the destination machine might align the fields in the structure differently.


Although argument marshalling is not rocket science is involved—it is a small matter of bit twiddling—there are a surprising number of design choices that you must address. We begin by giving a simple taxonomy for argument marshalling systems. The following is by no means the only viable taxonomy, but it is sufficient to cover most of the interesting alternatives.

Data Types

The first question is what data types the system is going to support. In general, we can classify the types supported by an argument marshalling mechanism at three levels. Each level complicates the task faced by the marshalling system.

At the lowest level, a marshalling system operates on some set of base types. Typically, the base types include integers, floating-point numbers, and characters. The system might also support ordinal types and Booleans. As described above, the implication of the set of base types is that the encoding process must be able to convert each base type from one representation to another—for example, convert an integer from big-endian to little-endian.

At the next level are flat types—structures and arrays. While flat types might at first not appear to complicate argument marshalling, the reality is that they do. The problem is that the compilers used to compile application programs sometimes insert padding between the fields that make up the structure so as to align these fields on word boundaries. The marshalling system typically packs structures so that they contain no padding.

At the highest level, the marshalling system might have to deal with complex types—those types that are built using pointers. That is, the data structure that one program wants to send to another might not be contained in a single structure, but might instead involve pointers from one structure to another. A tree is a good example of a complex type that involves pointers. Clearly, the data encoder must prepare the data structure for transmission over the network because pointers are implemented by memory addresses, and just because a structure lives at a certain memory address on one machine does not mean it will live at the same address on another machine. In other words, the marshalling system must serialize (flatten) complex data structures.

In summary, depending on how complicated the type system is, the task of argument marshalling usually involves converting the base types, packing the structures, and linearizing the complex data structures, all to form a contiguous message that can be transmitted over the network. Figure 3 illustrates this task.

Argument marshalling: converting, packing, and linearizing

Conversion Strategy

Once the type system is established, the next issue is what conversion strategy the argument marshaller will use. There are two general options: canonical intermediate form and receiver-makes-right. We consider each, in turn.

The idea of canonical intermediate form is to settle on an external representation for each type; the sending host translates from its internal representation to this external representation before sending data, and the receiver translates from this external representation into its local representation when receiving data. To illustrate the idea, consider integer data; other types are treated in a similar manner. You might declare that the big-endian format will be used as the external representation for integers. The sending host must translate each integer it sends into big-endian form, and the receiving host must translate big-endian integers into whatever representation it uses. (This is what is done in the Internet for protocol headers.) Of course, a given host might already use big-endian form, in which case no conversion is necessary.

The alternative, receiver-makes-right, has the sender transmit data in its own internal format; the sender does not convert the base types, but usually has to pack and flatten more complex data structures. The receiver is then responsible for translating the data from the sender's format into its own local format. The problem with this strategy is that every host must be prepared to convert data from all other machine architectures. In networking, this is known as an N-by-N solution: Each of N machine architectures must be able to handle all N architectures. In contrast, in a system that uses a canonical intermediate form, each host needs to know only how to convert between its own representation and a single other representation—the external one.

Using a common external format is clearly the correct thing to do, right? This has certainly been the conventional wisdom in the networking community for over 30 years. The answer is not cut and dried, however. It turns out that there are not that many different representations for the various base classes, or, said another way, N is not that large. In addition, the most common case is for two machines of the same type to be communicating with each other. In this situation, it seems silly to translate data from that architecture's representation into some foreign external representation, only to have to translate the data back into the same architecture's representation on the receiver.

A third option, although we know of no existing system that exploits it, is to use receiver-makes-right if the sender knows that the destination has the same architecture; the sender would use some canonical intermediate form if the two machines use different architectures. How would a sender learn the receiver's architecture? It could learn this information either from a name server or by first using a simple test case to see if the appropriate result occurs.


The third issue in argument marshalling is how the receiver knows what kind of data is contained in the message it receives. There are two common approaches: tagged and untagged data. The tagged approach is more intuitive, so we describe it first.

A tag is any additional information included in a message—beyond the concrete representation of the base types—that helps the receiver decode the message. There are several possible tags that might be included in a message. For example, each data item might be augmented with a type tag. A type tag indicates that the value that follows is an integer, a floating-point number, or whatever. Another example is a length tag. Such a tag is used to indicate the number of elements in an array or the size of an integer. A third example is an architecture tag, which might be used in conjunction with the receiver-makes-right strategy to specify the architecture on which the data contained in the message was generated. Figure 4 depicts how a simple 32-bit integer might be encoded in a tagged message.

A 32-bit integer encoded in a tagged message.

The alternative, of course, is not to use tags. How does the receiver know how to decode the data in this case? It knows because it was programmed to know. In other words, if you call a remote procedure that takes two integers and a floating-point number as arguments, then there is no reason for the remote procedure to inspect tags to know what it has just received. It simply assumes that the message contains two integers and a float and decodes it accordingly. Note that, while this works for most cases, the one place it breaks down is when sending variable-length arrays. In such a case, a length tag is commonly used to indicate how long the array is.

It is also worth noting that the untagged approach means that the presentation formatting is truly end to end. It is not possible for some intermediate agent to interpret the message unless the data is tagged. Why would an intermediate agent need to interpret a message, you might ask? Stranger things have happened, mostly resulting from ad hoc solutions to unexpected problems that the system was not engineered to handle. Poor network design is beyond the scope of this book.


A stub is the piece of code that implements argument marshalling. Stubs are typically used to support RPC. On the client side, the stub marshals the procedure arguments into a message that can be transmitted by means of the RPC protocol. On the server side, the stub converts the message back into a set of variables that can be used as arguments to call the remote procedure. Stubs can either be interpreted or compiled.

In a compilation-based approach, each procedure has a customized client and server stub. While it is possible to write stubs by hand, they are typically generated by a stub compiler, based on a description of the procedure's interface. This situation is illustrated in Figure 5. Since the stub is compiled, it is usually very efficient. In an interpretation-based approach, the system provides generic client and server stubs that have their parameters set by a description of the procedure's interface. Because it is easy to change this description, interpreted stubs have the advantage of being flexible. Compiled stubs are more common in practice.

Stub compiler takes interface description as input and outputs client and server stubs.

Examples (XDR, ASN.1, NDR)

We now briefly describe three popular network data representations in terms of this taxonomy. We use the integer base type to illustrate how each system works.


External Data Representation (XDR) is the network format used with SunRPC. In the taxonomy just introduced, XDR

  • Supports the entire C-type system with the exception of function pointers

  • Defines a canonical intermediate form

  • Does not use tags (except to indicate array lengths)

  • Uses compiled stubs

An XDR integer is a 32-bit data item that encodes a C integer. It is represented in twos complement notation, with the most significant byte of the C integer in the first byte of the XDR integer and the least significant byte of the C integer in the fourth byte of the XDR integer. That is, XDR uses big-endian format for integers. XDR supports both signed and unsigned integers, just as C does.

XDR represents variable-length arrays by first specifying an unsigned integer (4 bytes) that gives the number of elements in the array, followed by that many elements of the appropriate type. XDR encodes the components of a structure in the order of their declaration in the structure. For both arrays and structures, the size of each element/component is represented in a multiple of 4 bytes. Smaller data types are padded out to 4 bytes with 0s. The exception to this "pad to 4 bytes" rule is made for characters, which are encoded one per byte.

Example encoding of a structure in XDR.

The following code fragment gives an example C structure (item) and the XDR routine that encodes/decodes this structure (xdr_item). Figure 6 schematically depicts XDR's on-the-wire representation of this structure when the field name is seven characters long and the array list has three values in it.

In this example, xdr_array, xdr_int, and xdr_string are three primitive functions provided by XDR to encode and decode arrays, integers, and character strings, respectively. Argument xdrs is a context variable that XDR uses to keep track of where it is in the message being processed; it includes a flag that indicates whether this routine is being used to encode or decode the message. In other words, routines like xdr_item are used on both the client and the server. Note that the application programmer can either write the routine xdr_item by hand or use a stub compiler called rpcgen (not shown) to generate this encoding/decoding routine. In the latter case, rpcgen takes the remote procedure that defines the data structure item as input and outputs the corresponding stub.

#define MAXNAME 256;
#define MAXLIST 100;

struct item {
   int     count;
   char    name[MAXNAME];
   int     list[MAXLIST];

xdr_item(XDR *xdrs, struct item *ptr)
    return(xdr_int(xdrs, &ptr->count) &&
       xdr_string(xdrs, &ptr->name, MAXNAME) &&
       xdr_array(xdrs, &ptr->list, &ptr->count, MAXLIST,
                 sizeof(int), xdr_int));

Exactly how XDR performs depends, of course, on the complexity of the data. In a simple case of an array of integers, where each integer has to be converted from one byte order to another, an average of three instructions are required for each byte, meaning that converting the whole array is likely to be limited by the memory bandwidth of the machine. More complex conversions that require significantly more instructions per byte will be CPU limited and thus perform at a data rate less than the memory bandwidth.


Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) is an ISO standard that defines, among other things, a representation for data sent over a network. The representation-specific part of ASN.1 is called the Basic Encoding Rules (BER). ASN.1 supports the C-type system without function pointers, defines a canonical intermediate form, and uses type tags. Its stubs can be either interpreted or compiled. One of the claims to fame of ASN.1 BER is that it is used by the Internet standard Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP).

ASN.1 represents each data item with a triple of the form

(tag, length, value)

The tag is typically an 8-bit field, although ASN.1 allows for the definition of multibyte tags. The length field specifies how many bytes make up the value; we discuss length more below. Compound data types, such as structures, can be constructed by nesting primitive types, as illustrated in Figure 7.

Compound types created by means of nesting in ASN.1 BER.
ASN.1 BER representation for a 4-byte integer.

If the value is 127 or fewer bytes long, then the length is specified in a single byte. Thus, for example, a 32-bit integer is encoded as a 1-byte type, a 1-byte length, and the 4 bytes that encode the integer, as illustrated in Figure 8. The value itself, in the case of an integer, is represented in twos complement notation and big-endian form, just as in XDR. Keep in mind that, even though the value of the integer is represented in exactly the same way in both XDR and ASN.1, the XDR representation has neither the type nor the length tags associated with that integer. These two tags both take up space in the message and, more importantly, require processing during marshalling and unmarshalling. This is one reason why ASN.1 is not as efficient as XDR. Another is that the very fact that each data value is preceded by a length field means that the data value is unlikely to fall on a natural byte boundary (e.g., an integer beginning on a word boundary). This complicates the encoding/decoding process.

If the value is 128 or more bytes long, then multiple bytes are used to specify its length. At this point you may be asking why a byte can specify a length of up to 127 bytes rather than 256. The reason is that 1 bit of the length field is used to denote how long the length field is. A 0 in the eighth bit indicates a 1-byte length field. To specify a longer length, the eighth bit is set to 1, and the other 7 bits indicate how many additional bytes make up the length. Figure 9 illustrates a simple 1-byte length and a multibyte length.

ASN.1 BER representation for length: (a) 1 byte; (b) multibyte.


Network Data Representation (NDR) is the data-encoding standard used in the Distributed Computing Environment (DCE). Unlike XDR and ASN.1, NDR uses receiver-makes-right. It does this by inserting an architecture tag at the front of each message; individual data items are untagged. NDR uses a compiler to generate stubs. This compiler takes a description of a program written in the Interface Definition Language (IDL) and generates the necessary stubs. IDL looks pretty much like C, and so essentially supports the C-type system.

NDR's architecture tag.

Figure 10 illustrates the 4-byte architecture definition tag that is included at the front of each NDR-encoded message. The first byte contains two 4-bit fields. The first field, IntegrRep, defines the format for all integers contained in the message. A 0 in this field indicates big-endian integers, and a 1 indicates little-endian integers. The CharRep field indicates what character format is used: 0 means ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) and 1 means EBCDIC (an older, IBM-defined alternative to ASCII). Next, the FloatRep byte defines which floating-point representation is being used: 0 means IEEE 754, 1 means VAX, 2 means Cray, and 3 means IBM. The final 2 bytes are reserved for future use. Note that, in simple cases such as arrays of integers, NDR does the same amount of work as XDR, and so it is able to achieve the same performance.

Markup Languages (XML)

Although we have been discussing the presentation formatting problem from the perspective of RPC—that is, how does one encode primitive data types and compound data structures so they can be sent from a client program to a server program—the same basic problem occurs in other settings. For example, how does a web server describe a Web page so that any number of different browsers know what to display on the screen? In this specific case, the answer is the HyperText Markup Language (HTML), which indicates that certain character strings should be displayed in bold or italics, what font type and size should be used, and where images should be positioned.

The availability of all sorts of Web applications and data have also created a situation in which different Web applications need to communicate with each other and understand each other's data. For example, an e-commerce website might need to talk to a shipping company's website to allow a customer to track a package without ever leaving the e-commerce website. This quickly starts to look a lot like RPC, and the approach taken in the Web today to enable such communication among web servers is based on the Extensible Markup Language (XML)—a way to describe the data being exchanged between Web apps.

Markup languages, of which HTML and XML are both examples, take the tagged data approach to the extreme. Data is represented as text, and text tags known as markup are intermingled with the data text to express information about the data. In the case of HTML, markup indicates how the text should be displayed; other markup languages like XML can express the type and structure of the data.

XML is actually a framework for defining different markup languages for different kinds of data. For example, XML has been used to define a markup language that is roughly equivalent to HTML called Extensible HyperText Markup Language (XHTML). XML defines a basic syntax for mixing markup with data text, but the designer of a specific markup language has to name and define its markup. It is common practice to refer to individual XML-based languages simply as XML, but we will emphasize the distinction in this introductory material.

XML syntax looks much like HTML. For example, an employee record in a hypothetical XML-based language might look like the following XML document, which might be stored in a file named employee.xml. The first line indicates the version of XML being used, and the remaining lines represent four fields that make up the employee record, the last of which (hiredate) contains three subfields. In other words, XML syntax provides for a nested structure of tag/value pairs, which is equivalent to a tree structure for the represented data (with employee as the root). This is similar to XDR, ASN.1, and NDR's ability to represent compound types, but in a format that can be both processed by programs and read by humans. More importantly, programs such as parsers can be used across different XML-based languages, because the definitions of those languages are themselves expressed as machine-readable data that can be input to the programs.

<?xml version="1.0"?>
   <name>John Doe</name>
   <title>Head Bottle Washer</title>

Although the markup and the data in this document are highly suggestive to the human reader, it is the definition of the employee record language that actually determines what tags are legal, what they mean, and what data types they imply. Without some formal definition of the tags, a human reader (or a computer) can't tell whether 1986 in the year field, for example, is a string, an integer, an unsigned integer, or a floating point number.

The definition of a specific XML-based language is given by a schema, which is a database term for a specification of how to interpret a collection of data. Several schema languages have been defined for XML; we will focus here on the leading standard, known by the none-too-surprising name XML Schema. An individual schema defined using XML Schema is known as an XML Schema Document (XSD). The following is an XSD for the example; in other words, it defines the language to which the example document conforms. It might be stored in a file named employee.xsd.

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
  <element name="employee">
        <element name="name" type="string"/>
        <element name="title" type="string"/>
        <element name="id" type="string"/>
        <element name="hiredate">
              <element name="day" type="integer"/>
              <element name="month" type="string"/>
              <element name="year" type="integer"/>

This XSD looks superficially similar to our example document employee.xml, and for good reason: XML Schema is itself an XML-based language. There is an obvious relationship between this XSD and the document defined above. For example,

<element name="title" type="string"/>

indicates that the value bracketed by the markup title is to be interpreted as a string. The sequence and nesting of that line in the XSD indicate that a title field must be the second item in an employee record.

Unlike some schema languages, XML Schema provides datatypes such as string, integer, decimal, and Boolean. It allows the datatypes to be combined in sequences or nested, as in employee.xsd, to create compound data types. So an XSD defines more than a syntax; it defines its own abstract data model. A document that conforms to the XSD represents a collection of data that conforms to the data model.

The significance of an XSD defining an abstract data model and not just a syntax is that there can be other ways besides XML of representing data that conforms to the model. And XML does, after all, have some shortcomings as an on-the-wire representation: it is not as compact as other data representations, and it is relatively slow to parse. A number of alternative representations described as binary are in use. The International Standards Organization (ISO) has published one called Fast Infoset, while the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has produced the Efficient XML Interchange (EXI) proposal. Binary representations sacrifice human readability for greater compactness and faster parsing.

XML Namespaces

XML has to solve a common problem, that of name clashes. The problem arises because schema languages such as XML Schema support modularity in the sense that a schema can be reused as part of another schema. Suppose two XSDs are defined independently, and both happen to define the markup name idNumber. Perhaps one XSD uses that name to identify employees of a company, and the other XSD uses it to identify laptop computers owned by the company. We might like to reuse those two XSDs in a third XSD for describing which assets are associated with which employees, but to do that we need some mechanism for distinguishing employees' idNumbers from laptop idNumbers.

XML's solution to this problem is XML namespaces. A namespace is a collection of names. Each XML namespace is identified by a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI). URIs will be described in some detail in a later chapter; for now, all you really need to know is that URIs are a form of globally unique identifier. (An HTTP URL is a particular type of UNI.) A simple markup name like idNumber can be added to a namespace as long as it is unique within that namespace. Since the namespace is globally unique and the simple name is unique within the namespace, the combination of the two is a globally unique qualified name that cannot clash.

An XSD usually specifies a target namespace with a line like the following:


is a Uniform Resource Identifier, identifying a made-up namespace. All the new markup defined in that XSD will belong to that namespace.

Now, if an XSD wants to reference names that have been defined in other XSDs, it can do so by qualifying those names with a namespace prefix. This prefix is a short abbreviation for the full URI that actually identifies the namespace. For example, the following line assigns emp as the namespace prefix for the employee namespace:


Any markup from that namespace would be qualified by prefixing it with emp: , as is title in the following line:

<emp:title>Head Bottle Washer</emp:title>

In other words, emp:title is a qualified name, which will not clash with the name title from some other namespace.

It is remarkable how widely XML is now used in applications that range from RPC-style communication among Web-based services to office productivity tools to instant messaging. It is certainly one of the core protocols on which the upper layers of the Internet now depend.

results matching ""

    No results matching ""