IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Wed, 22 May 2013 18:04 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
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 5017E21F8E06 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 JleeSGU8fqIO for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1872B11E8118 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:04:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.9.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4MI47Ge020704 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 22 May 2013 11:04:10 -0700
Message-ID: <519D0893.8010602@bbiw.net>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 11:04:03 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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>
In-Reply-To: <8F16DE1E-3D5F-4C38-937E-14EAF66D3D94@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.67]); Wed, 22 May 2013 11:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.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 18:04:20 -0000

On 5/22/2013 10:57 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On May 22, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:
>
>> Why not BSON or BJSON or UBJSON or MsgPack or ... ?
>
> Because they didn't meet the design objectives that we listed in Section 1. MessagePack had a lot of what we wanted, which is why we say "CBOR was inspired by MessagePack" in the acknowledgements.


A response with the semantics of "because we liked the one we chose 
better" seems less responsive than what I took the question to be asking.

I assume the nature of 'why' was for some discussion of the technical 
differences that justify the choice.

That's certainly what I'd be interested in seeing and am suggesting a 
summary of it be added to the document.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email