IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 22 May 2013 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.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 A595411E8137 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 drCAfXS-pNac for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D07F11E8136 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 11:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4MIg5EZ008959; Wed, 22 May 2013 20:42:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54891D40.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.29.64]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B43C43954; Wed, 22 May 2013 20:42:04 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <519D0893.8010602@bbiw.net>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 20:42:03 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <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>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, 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 18:42:22 -0000

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

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status