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

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Wed, 22 May 2013 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ABCB21F91B0 for <>; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CFWWz2raHifP for <>; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::232]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3514F21F9058 for <>; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id hj6so236256wib.5 for <>; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=4qeNR9qmvjnuIGWD8UmhOppBbzGRKs5JFv/yWhYydS4=; b=ZQK4bkO2f7gMXC4BRxS+zuHMlxDG64claPquInTzW3F9xkVvnPq/1IDUcFBzKLrfV9 oto7y62u5llzBuQ98D1s3kG6DwjcnQD8cLyqit0eX8UveoVbVHmSD4kAAKyfrRmSEu63 ZYD6MRC39wJvmn3yLzSuGHR1nhCjmSfqXjONLnNBwcfd9he2DBXyRfZXPV0T0WbdWQov bpudS0Kc9XukISK0lWgVj8Ywd4Tv2LaH9rYdcnfeY5aNMTiMcjoikiZ1LynBbS3e7SoK tWUfArdul+BeSYbuRS8ZT5GI3Wc5wmOxBe0xDXen9kEYJPbHLOSzjqtohM/6LOSx7tnQ 9e+w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id bj7mr35759293wib.5.1369244758491; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 22 May 2013 10:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 13:45:58 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
To: Carsten Bormann <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d0443048a70cba004dd5223d2"
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 17:46:01 -0000

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Carsten Bormann <> wrote:

> > I would like to have available a BER like encoding for JSON.
> What is it that you like about BER?
> (And, as you mentioned there are a couple, which BER do you like :-)?

There is only one BER as far as I know. The problem is they also have DER,
XER etc. etc.

The worst of these is DER which was a terrible implementation of an idea
that was totally unnecessary in the first place. Canonicalization is an
unnecessary and broken idea. The idea that people would pull X.509v3 certs
apart and reconstitute them to check the signatures was silly. Nobody ever
did, nobody ever will.

The rationale for XML Dig sig canonicalization is a little better but
should have been taken as evidence that SOAP was broken and we needed to do
something different.

The main advantage of BER is that they are a known quantity and anyone
proposing to make changes needs to give reason.

But I would still subset to remove features not needed by JSON.

> > But this proposal seems to be something rather different.
> We try to learn.
> CBOR can sure do everything a "BER for JSON" could do.  And a little more.

I would like no more, no less.