Re: [apps-discuss] Comparisons in the CBOR draft
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 27 May 2013 17:39 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 819FD21F8201 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2013 10:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.264
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_TAG_BALANCE_HEAD=1.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 vP99MaAllcKj for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2013 10:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1AF021F8DFC for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 May 2013 10:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.33] ([188.118.215.162]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4RHdgQY028224 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 27 May 2013 10:39:46 -0700
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <790FBA26-527F-4244-BB82-C5759F1E8FC3@vpnc.org>
References: <790FBA26-527F-4244-BB82-C5759F1E8FC3@vpnc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----9YGWBPDWWA8DOFJ0759RHCBHMNV8UV"
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 19:39:38 +0200
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org Discuss" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <8aa846e2-0849-46d5-9734-b7a48072f45e@email.android.com>
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Mon, 27 May 2013 10:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Comparisons in the CBOR draft
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, 27 May 2013 17:39:52 -0000
Primarily for fun, it would be interesting to see a comparison against Haverty's proposal. /d Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote: >Greetings again. Based on the requests here last week, we will be >adding a section to the CBOR draft briefly discussing some major >existing formats with respect to their major properties and the design >goals for CBOR. We already have sections for ASN.1 DER/BER, >MessagePack, and BSON. Are there other formats people would like to see >in the list? What are people's favorite streaming-capable JSON-like >binary formats? > >--Paul Hoffman >_______________________________________________ >apps-discuss mailing list >apps-discuss@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
- [apps-discuss] Comparisons in the CBOR draft Paul Hoffman
- Re: [apps-discuss] Comparisons in the CBOR draft James M Snell
- Re: [apps-discuss] Comparisons in the CBOR draft Dave Crocker