IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Wed, 22 May 2013 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <jasnell@gmail.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 4A72411E8144 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 fDa-Wgio5oql for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x233.google.com (mail-ob0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1EB711E8136 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id ta14so1662532obb.10 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yJta8CLCug8K0aQJJao+LKf5j3Cz407MGxEebCCpzAc=; b=CLZDrbsmqj7VOhlgNe+RsYoF1ET/adgqYfk+y4zj+vV+mLUpGgwWA1vy8iTey/Xr4B ZpolM9mJRg30IDwUjt1dukqLJytLPOpHo/Pl6A/AiKD02am3tn2wDgwMaV1ZqmafdZkT jTKGgxu6rfc1BvpQxfcH6rQxV6AQU1RTfrljuCd9e9pZ+tcyNw2N/t97XI0XCBo8dcyO fdQcqq8U0/M1zQy2P6eU48VIKyIGhEwTMWqrLDtlTWNxNJfA81oriGUxsav2Kbldidko tr+sX3TBQx05JedE07EIgU2pg9uQoHPobwrXyAYYSgGVc/U73D++/heVRLFKtRfuEfWW l3Gg==
X-Received: by 10.182.227.133 with SMTP id sa5mr5789154obc.96.1369248255050; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.3.137 with HTTP; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:43:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CB2CE68C-278A-4468-8C05-27622B7FA9A2@tzi.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> <CB2CE68C-278A-4468-8C05-27622B7FA9A2@tzi.org>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 11:43:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbftgm2asyu6LgGHoZVQKy3aCY5vHu6_qHQrXbdd+P65wA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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 18:44:16 -0000

Best bet: define the syntax, provide a couple of great open source
implementations, let people know about them.. then time will tell
whether it'll be worthwhile to standardize. There shouldn't be any
rush on getting an RFC done.

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> On May 22, 2013, at 20:04, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> wrote:
>
>> That's certainly what I'd be interested in seeing and am suggesting a summary of it be added to the document.
>
> The summary of our objectives is in section 1.
>
> A summary of all the formats that we looked at would be great for an encyclopedia, but not for the protocol specification.
> (And, as I mentioned in prt
>
> In 1980, when the specification for a new programming language came out that most people by now have forgotten, one major innovation was that it was accompanied by a "rationale" document.
> This was much bigger than the specification.  And, somehow, when I read it, I had the impression that much of it was used to justify design decisions that were untenable.
>
> Yes, we could document the rationale behind each of the about five design decisions that went into CBOR.
> But doesn't the specification of something as simple as this speak for itself?
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email