IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Zach Shelby <zach@sensinode.com> Mon, 05 August 2013 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <zach@sensinode.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 A1CA421F8F3C; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 10:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 hmZXlsUo5DcG; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 10:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from auth-smtp.nebula.fi (auth-smtp.nebula.fi [217.30.180.105]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2473821F9CC5; Mon, 5 Aug 2013 10:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.37.109.3] ([77.95.242.69]) (authenticated bits=0) by auth-smtp.nebula.fi (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r75HomTd026733 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 5 Aug 2013 20:50:49 +0300
X-Authenticated-User: sensinodecom
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Zach Shelby <zach@sensinode.com>
In-Reply-To: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A71418233A@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 20:50:49 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <607B7E5D-EEF3-4D53-A5C1-5484795B64C7@sensinode.com>
References: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A71418233A@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: "draft-bormann-cbor-04.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-bormann-cbor-04.all@tools.ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@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: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 17:51:11 -0000

On Aug 5, 2013, at 8:43 PM, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:

>> 7.  The format must be extensible, with the extended data being able
>> to be parsed by earlier parsers.
> 
> 
> This is interesting, and I would be willing to give up several kinds of
> extensibility to get more simplicity.  Perhaps this is your greatest
> issue, and I don't think you are necessarily wrong.

As an IoT end-user of this kind of format, I would have no issues with giving up quite a bit of extensibility for more simplicity. If that is the major push-back, then I think we should look at reassessing the need for e.g. tags. 

Zach

-- 
Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd.
http://www.sensinode.com @SensinodeIoT
Mobile: +358 40 7796297
Twitter: @zach_shelby
LinkedIn: http://fi.linkedin.com/in/zachshelby
6LoWPAN Book: http://6lowpan.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email