IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Thu, 23 May 2013 19:01 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 7779321F9814 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 12:01:29 -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 X9RTTh5bW9AO for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 12:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x229.google.com (mail-ob0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79BE121F93A3 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2013 11:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 16so4002938obc.0 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2013 11:36:01 -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=VeW877LjCMfkeSDjk2xh4mTUApQ/5BFYmKzbCVJ3d5M=; b=qmHMEjsdITK6fwT4RI3JWnY6WOCMrfKN6Irc4E2j2jwNyidJ3XFGf+MplX1lS8n9yp jQ+Cuce5DN2QiLJzX06RFPptOBBaa7wF1si/udc2EyKnw2ZhcybcMxq+3K0ym3GjZfjw fr6aqdZLliHfgSItvtOY3bPsBL8XQUUuJYCQcXtsht+RENoO5HvMC+OmM+3DZT0GNeUQ KWzEZA4Hjo7E5lKDh+Vlf/kTf8YNskWw31l/wJkfYaNm9iYVlwAaAzOGAeX0QC3YazpM 737Y3ZzauaYpvJjtq2g6tp0nW1Vm3hrq9JplgY5zHlsfyRjIkzOnHt3XeFh9TbYPwKcE GfnQ==
X-Received: by 10.60.16.69 with SMTP id e5mr9319798oed.46.1369334161008; Thu, 23 May 2013 11:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.3.137 with HTTP; Thu, 23 May 2013 11:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3367FDBE-8268-4F3A-85CF-94D64BF60FCC@vpnc.org>
References: <61CB1D18-BABC-4C77-93E6-A9E8CDA8326B@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOhVRqUp+xn8mBj8_x8pgubc7bhWebzsFLvoj+ieWmr5gg@mail.gmail.com> <142483A4-2E80-43F1-B3BE-B5B01650BB8F@tzi.org> <CAK3OfOim44hRaRoFh8vKfK5SPVAnvTGiBV4cizvw30K=ZQPJHQ@mail.gmail.com> <84317001-DB56-4DBE-9D1E-A4E605BC07A0@tzi.org> <CAK3OfOj9dH-E1infhUECwgKYQF7ASw1Z21M5oG24PHMLWxuVYw@mail.gmail.com> <3367FDBE-8268-4F3A-85CF-94D64BF60FCC@vpnc.org>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 11:35:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbdBFBKsXhJ=Y0CowWQBK_WDBmPkAT_+dUj1xic-=J=Jug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org 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: Thu, 23 May 2013 19:01:29 -0000

That's well and good, from everything I've seen so far in this thread,
the collective majority opinion can be summarized as "Ugh... Groan..
Another one? Really?"  ... That being said, there's really nothing
*technically* wrong with CBOR that I can spot and there are a number
of very nice features included. Posting the I-D is good, and having
implementations available is good, but having a running debate of the
technical merits of CBOR vs. Everything Else is pointless. It would be
great to see a comparison of CBOR to other previous attempts in this
space added to the next iteration of the draft.

As far as the I-D being an apps area wg work item... I'm not sure I
personally see the value in that yet. There's nothing wrong with
handling it as an individual, independent submission for a few
iterations and just seeing how support shapes up around it (if it
does). If the value of this particular binary encoding becomes readily
apparent to everyone later on, then we can go on from there. (just my
opinion of course).



On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> On May 23, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>>> JSON ≠ JavaScript.
>>
>> I'm aware.  But defining protocols that can't be implemented in JS
>> because they use numbers that JS can't represent seems problematic.
>
> As I said earlier on this thread, there is already an implementation in JavaScript.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email