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

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Wed, 22 May 2013 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21A221F96CE for <>; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 00EJEf2Gdqp9 for <>; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C48C921F96C9 for <>; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id hn14so4314258wib.2 for <>; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=NXPlcOlH5Dt7iBgGHQeLI+dwZhOBxOLimOI6mA5dFSI=; b=I8UZr1vBaSbKomFnGFhxRxmvosFIwY1QdEGfmohjHJHlG2PbBsivGqrWQ/4yIrH31B bMGnPEs/HXjzSQPvGVYj0xGpRjgB+AOetdu8IpJF8bm5pEWxpJfx4cPlojbVFi1f2mOd /e76gTpBbawOV9vZGLMOhE2d7doInpFoinA6Czafukn9Y37qVKSPShNj1QLCdZq17Fj5 lLkhy9hBuDcjB+80oVHBrdHH3wCQ5tMwX3xeccZuFigjlk5w9Ex/5FgZRzYu7QEkT62m qm7bZ6EnwGMhz3cTB5fyTDQiGdkFwg1UtYysAnMj8tupDIdYjDhRUG0dtTs0PUlv4TEr RNUg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id bo12mr35375556wib.22.1369239963924; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 22 May 2013 09:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 12:26:03 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f3bab85a9827704dd5105b8"
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 16:26:06 -0000

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Paul Hoffman <>wrote:

> On May 22, 2013, at 9:14 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
> wrote:
> > I think we can all agree that *A* binary format would be useful and that
> two dozen are not useful.
> Nope, that is patently absurd. That would only be true if everyone agreed
> on all the design goals and decisions for the one binary format, and that
> clearly cannot happen.

We all use RFC822 header style despite the rather obvious fact it does not
meet every need. Most of us used XML when that was fashionable despite the
baroque nature. Pretty much everyone is piling into JSON right now.

For a binary format to be useful it has to be something that is shared
across multiple projects so that we can get code reuse.

It might be that there is utility in three formats with different features
but I rather doubt that is the case as I have never heard of a project fail
because XML or JSON did not have enough expressive capability. The problems
with XML come from the complexity and the extensibility being rather badly
thought out.

We already have a few projects that have defined such schemes already. TLS
for example.