Re: [apps-discuss] Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Wed, 22 May 2013 18:40 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
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 8657511E8138 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 JNwooflu5b+G for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x230.google.com (mail-wg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0650E21F9031 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id f12so1136941wgh.27 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=d+IfjSWBlPzDO66S9gn3Sj+7+e8KScxnp4lSYq1GlDU=; b=L7kc57T0Hxj/ZD1YmYU6Mu9clrVTU/E195xKfOchHgv2vV3s4GHw/Ge/IYp0YtjdVX /TvcmEkiljVPUngHXylw9yttEcmwgW0c6R2nAOvnEF/10u5i65D6MW2vqFGNFuz+M2p1 nltqb/poADy+ooIhZ+9g+SAPpzRNKiqWfzerduwPGBGkSp42D+dyn1187UcZIbx4Shan x49yundk5+vxV5y8d88JAqnZe+YLBsmTI8+gmCbbuwYx7//fE4dTqbe8RQNqJBsMaXbS r5WszLnrXcVcs29lkX2fWhZtOVQ8mjKFB5GnTRQ8WLRGyt4ctK9ic4WmHhAj0VCKfE7L nSZg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.89.140 with SMTP id bo12mr36494476wib.22.1369248043518; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.7.138 with HTTP; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4BECAAE7-46CD-4C11-BBA8-3453CEC29519@dotat.at>
References: <61CB1D18-BABC-4C77-93E6-A9E8CDA8326B@vpnc.org> <CABP7RbcUJJoPJYdCOGSoa8fJfqj+R5RttjDtG5zXDirUV9OMQA@mail.gmail.com> <3638B63C-0E75-4E99-BF65-28F83DB856A6@vpnc.org> <CAMm+LwjKzHnOKDp0dmHN1Czes-f7tcJ2U1qz7S_HoSpcfKMyyA@mail.gmail.com> <04905D53-5022-4741-A2B6-9EE4593A4C65@tzi.org> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1305221841270.3056@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <8F16DE1E-3D5F-4C38-937E-14EAF66D3D94@vpnc.org> <519D0893.8010602@bbiw.net> <4BECAAE7-46CD-4C11-BBA8-3453CEC29519@dotat.at>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 14:40:43 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwiWNgS=ERntyC31pju1VCjspMT=Fc19mkqQ+wtCt69TRQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f3bab853e507204dd52e7fb"
Cc: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
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, 22 May 2013 18:40:58 -0000

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:

> On 22 May 2013, at 19:04, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> wrote:
> >
> > I assume the nature of 'why' was for some discussion of the technical
> differences that justify the choice.
>
> Right. This is an over-populated niche, and there need to be compelling
> reasons to disregard existing specs with running code.
>
> Tony.
>

Emphasis here being 'compelling'...

The whole problem with this space is that it is so easy for someone to make
a proposal. It doesn't really take much knowledge of the problem either.


I have a code generator for protocols. Give it an API signature and it
dumps out code to serialize and deserialise JSON. If people can agree on
one binary alternative to JSON I will add it to the generator. But I don't
plan to offer more than one.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/jsonschema/

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/