IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 23 May 2013 05:27 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 7FED821F9608 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 22:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 MxVG-7W4v-xo for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 22:27:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a64.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbef.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A74321F9601 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 22:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a64.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a64.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD477438079 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 22:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=ASGgZxOcNQoiGuHjc92z Wp8APAM=; b=FldD8yqhp8eILpB/ZW7IHp8spMgXUvmeejTwCYzcMgXOVVdALzU7 /bhFiFkO5euZ5xaGfaiRBrePitFOiJu1CVZTGPc2xn/+8wICxPLbE1AIiGsiJjIO zRv/7dTkKaMb98Am24bZJeon6MIUZoM42EraTy6BJpw0l7yYfmtRCHE=
Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com (mail-wg0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a64.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 53D4543806C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 22:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id k13so1773993wgh.17 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 22:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=SeB1igs/rpb4FksxE2xhXfXt2+aqzIFaClrRuHwJpKM=; b=id7rOsQiW6P2Lmka15TF8MPygYnzaBxS//saxQSnu2L5vW2w26vuTcg2y81z6ZSknt pl2yNBj3yfhRaMf+rtSpcszAloUjj0LMFg53gDm8SaYF+PLGdKcaRwUAa9FziCCWwqeu XAHue8+rmQWtCjcIkNoWUoJj/Fo7DRUQ1sfAx0cOWhUPNYd84+0mTrqjioPtlkqvL0gE CZ8fLtynzzLQTEH309moKly704HzYJXhQMZrQxmUl8IrNrtdgcqHltgxROF+JQ5fkXz+ ZrgyaDoQj9+vET6BbIiljifEhPpnV3Vwbd7PWw05Y/RtELcmoPSEvscvB3SJiYb19FMl YBWQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.189.68 with SMTP id gg4mr20751828wic.27.1369286847896; Wed, 22 May 2013 22:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.111.132 with HTTP; Wed, 22 May 2013 22:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <61CB1D18-BABC-4C77-93E6-A9E8CDA8326B@vpnc.org>
References: <61CB1D18-BABC-4C77-93E6-A9E8CDA8326B@vpnc.org>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 00:27:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOhVRqUp+xn8mBj8_x8pgubc7bhWebzsFLvoj+ieWmr5gg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: 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: Thu, 23 May 2013 05:27:36 -0000

Thoughts:

 - if we're going to have an RFC on JSON, might as well have one on
some binary encoding of JSON

 - yet another encoding.  yay.

 - this encoding does suffice for encoding JSON

 - this encoding can go beyond JSON -- this is good, but a strict
JSON-equivalent subset should be specified

 - yeah, multiple ways of encoding a given value suck; in particular,
for the JSON-equivalent subset, there should be only doubles, no
floats, no integers

 - might as well have a type for "octet string" -- no base64 encoding please

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email