Re: [Ace] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8392 (5710)

[Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felipe Gasper <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 9:04 AM
> To: Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8392 (5710)
> 
> 
> > On Apr 29, 2019, at 12:00 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 08:55:53AM -0700, RFC Errata System wrote:
> >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8392, "CBOR Web
> >> Token (CWT)".
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------
> >> You may review the report below and at:
> >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5710
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------
> >> Type: Technical
> >> Reported by: Felipe Gasper <[e-mail]>
> >>
> >> Section: 1.1
> >>
> >> Original Text
> >> -------------
> >> In JSON, maps are called objects and only have one kind of map key: a
> >>   string.  CBOR uses strings, negative integers, and unsigned integers
> >>   as map keys.
> >>
> >> Corrected Text
> >> --------------
> >> In JSON, maps are called objects and only have one kind of map key:
> >> a string.  CBOR allows other data types, such as strings, negative
> >> integers, and unsigned integers, as map keys.
> >>
> >> Notes
> >> -----
> >> The text as it stands risks an interpretation that CBOR limits map keys
to
> integers and strings; per discussion on the CBOR mailing list, this is not
the
> case.
> >
> > I see the CBOR list traffic in the archive (e.g.,
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/LyndIfQipxUfx0cu6nlOwi6ceOY
> > ) and agree with the sentiment that the CWT spec should not
> > inadvertently over-specify the behavior of CBOR
> >
> > The proposed new text is itself flawed, though, as it claims that
> > strings are an "other data type" with respect to strings.
> 
> Ah, agreed. Is there a way I can update my proposed phrase? The editor
only
> seems to allow submission of a new erratum.
> 
> It may be worth disambiguating between binary and UTF-8 strings, too; JSON
> only allows UTF-8 strings, while CBOR also allows binary.

I would agree that it would make sense to say that.  However CBOR uses the
term "byte string" not "binary string" so use the right term.

Jim

> 
> -F