Internet-Draft DIMG Format June 2025
Wang Expires 7 December 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-hongxingwang-dispatch-dimg-file-format-00
Published:
Intended Status:
Informational
Expires:
Author:
H.X. Wang, Ed.
Individual Contributor

The DIMG (Dual-Image) File Format Specification

Abstract

This document specifies the DIMG (Dual-Image) file format, which encapsulates two discrete image blocks within a single file container. The format addresses common inefficiencies in handling front/back documentation scenarios by eliminating redundant file management operations and simplifying data exchange workflows. Security considerations are discussed in Section 7.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress".

This Internet-Draft will expire on December 3, 2025.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 3 December 2025.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The proliferation of digital documentation requiring paired image submissions (e.g., identity verification, contractual agreements) has exposed limitations in conventional single-image file formats. DIMG solves this by introducing:

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.

Security considerations are discussed in Appendix A.

2. Architecture

DIMG employs a segmented structure with three primary components:

+-------------------+
| File Header       |
| (Magic: 0xD1MG)   |
| Format Version    |
| Metadata Pointer  |
+-------------------+
| Block 1 Header    |
| Compression Type  |
| Dimensions        |
| Data Offset       |
+-------------------+
| Block 2 Header    |
| Compression Type  |
| Dimensions        |
| Data Offset       |
+-------------------+
| Metadata Section  |
| (JSON/XML)        |
+-------------------+
| Image Data 1      |
| (Variable Size)   |
+-------------------+
| Image Data 2      |
| (Variable Size)   |
+-------------------+
Figure 1

Key structural attributes:

  1. File Header: 16-byte identifier with format versioning

  2. Block Headers: Independent compression/dimension parameters

  3. Metadata Section: Contains relationship descriptors (e.g., "front", "back")

3. Operational Workflow

DIMG supports two population methods:

3.1. Direct Ingestion

Existing images are inserted into designated blocks:

INSERT INTO Block1: photo_front.jpg
INSERT INTO Block2: photo_back.jpg
SAVE AS document.dimg

3.2. Dynamic Extraction

Source materials (including PDF [RFC8118]) are processed during creation:

LOAD multipage.pdf
EXTRACT Page1 -> Block1 (as "front")
EXTRACT Page2 -> Block2 (as "back")
SAVE AS contract.dimg

4. Use Cases

Primary application scenarios include:

5. Advantages

Comparative benefits over conventional approaches:

Table 1
Metric Separate Files DIMG Format
Upload Operations 2+ 1
Metadata Sync Manual Automatic
Storage Overhead ~12-18% 0%
Association Errors 15-22%* 0%

*Per industry usability studies ([FinTech2024])

See Appendix A for security implications of metadata handling.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8118]
Schaad, P., "The application/pdf Media Type", , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8118>.

6.2. Informative References

[FinTech2024]
Financial Technology Security Consortium, "2024 FinTech Security Report", .

Appendix A. Security Considerations

Implementations MUST address the following security concerns:

  1. Validate block headers to prevent buffer overflow attacks

  2. Sanitize metadata sections against XML/JSON injection vulnerabilities

  3. Restrict maximum block size (RECOMMENDED: 20MB per block)

  4. Implement content verification for extracted image data

Additional recommendations:

Appendix B. IANA Considerations

The following registrations are requested:

Author's Address

HongXing (editor)
Individual Contributor
China
Phone: 13322442306