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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 23 May 2013 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 0CC4D21F968F for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 09:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.609
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 8uDKNmeYat17 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 09:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B02F21F968E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2013 09:28:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-173.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.173]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4NGSq9w099531 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 23 May 2013 09:28:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOjm0B8rA_BEkQKUJqTPuV+A8=gcDi+THD1xu-JtFSJ1gA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 09:28:54 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AD8555C9-0641-4030-8648-4123A2D923B2@vpnc.org>
References: <61CB1D18-BABC-4C77-93E6-A9E8CDA8326B@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOjm0B8rA_BEkQKUJqTPuV+A8=gcDi+THD1xu-JtFSJ1gA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
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 16:28:55 -0000

On May 23, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

> Also, I believe this is the fifth binary encoding of JSON proposed
> thus far.  

A note on terminology: CBOR is not a "binary encoding of JSON". It has a design goal of supporting all JSON data types for conversion to and from JSON. That design goal (which we think we have met) is far down the list of design goals.

> Can we list the ones that have been proposed thus far?
> 
> Here's a [no-doubt partial] list:
> 
> - BSON
> - MsgPack
> - Smile
> - UBJSON
> - CBOR
> 
> That's just the ones I recall seeing before or which I found in 30
> seconds of searching.
> 
> Some of these are used in actual protocols right now.
> 
> An analysis of these might be nice.

As we said yesterday, we will have an appendix of other binary formats, saying how they do and don't meet the design goals for CBOR. That should help people decide whether reusing one of the existing formats is more worthwhile than CBOR.

--Paul Hoffman