IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 22 May 2013 18:25 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 6A40421F93E6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 s++sVR2cOqDW for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:25:44 -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 DDEFA21F93DA for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [165.227.249.247] (sn80.proper.com [75.101.18.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4MIPC4Z058452 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 22 May 2013 11:25:12 -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: <4BECAAE7-46CD-4C11-BBA8-3453CEC29519@dotat.at>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 11:25:11 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BD917CF3-4A74-452E-96AF-8A967C5A954B@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> <519D0893.8010602@bbiw.net> <4BECAAE7-46CD-4C11-BBA8-3453CEC29519@dotat.at>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, 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 18:25:44 -0000

On May 22, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:

> On 22 May 2013, at 19:04, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> wrote:
>> 
>> I assume the nature of 'why' was for some discussion of the technical differences that justify the choice.
> 
> Right. This is an over-populated niche, and there need to be compelling reasons to disregard existing specs with running code.

Sure, we can add an analysis of our design goals against existing formats as an appendix. 

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email