IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Gen-ART review of draft-bormann-cbor-04

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 14 August 2013 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C4511E8187; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C93vMKWag9eG; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4960411E8118; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7EKkLTL010851; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 22:46:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54890CE5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.12.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8A17FB0; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 22:46:21 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1308131200210.6019@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 22:46:19 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6B9ACBC6-7552-4A55-9C3F-A773A373C0DE@tzi.org>
References: <CABkgnnXtCBHnOpY_=t7yWD-+7rSFHKdUi0VGUSVJqXq+xV-G2g@mail.gmail.com> <D16097AF-5DFB-4F6A-A6E7-2582C1CF25CD@tzi.org> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1308131200210.6019@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org Mailing List" <ietf@ietf.org>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Gen-ART review of draft-bormann-cbor-04
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:47:00 -0000

On Aug 13, 2013, at 13:14, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:

> MessagePack is simpler so will need even less code

FWIW, earlier today I had a nice afternoon with the msgpack-ruby C code, converting it to encoding and decoding CBOR instead.

Saved ~ 250 lines of C code.

Of course, I'm filling in that gap now by implementing some of the optional tags of CBOR.
In the end, the implementation of a generic CBOR encoder/decoder with a sizable collection of optional tags will probably indeed be slightly larger.
But if you just need the features of MessagePack, I now have one data point where CBOR measurably wins on the implementation complexity metric.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email