IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 23 May 2013 07:40 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 7032121F8CA0 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 00:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, 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 lS5Qw7XmwQjV for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 00:39:56 -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 15A4921F8C98 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2013 00:39:55 -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 r4N7dioD001920; Thu, 23 May 2013 09:39:44 +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 4EA343B16; Thu, 23 May 2013 09:39:44 +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: <CAK3OfOhVRqUp+xn8mBj8_x8pgubc7bhWebzsFLvoj+ieWmr5gg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 09:15:08 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <142483A4-2E80-43F1-B3BE-B5B01650BB8F@tzi.org>
References: <61CB1D18-BABC-4C77-93E6-A9E8CDA8326B@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOhVRqUp+xn8mBj8_x8pgubc7bhWebzsFLvoj+ieWmr5gg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, 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 07:40:02 -0000

On May 23, 2013, at 07:27, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

> - yeah, multiple ways of encoding a given value suck; in particular,
> for the JSON-equivalent subset, there should be only doubles, no
> floats, no integers

This is about like saying there should only ever be 64-bit integers (or 128-bit, while we are at it).
The serializer can choose one of multiple representations (or, if it is expedient, it can stick with one).
Like with different size of integers, there is little effort in a deserializer to support different sizes of floats.

> - might as well have a type for "octet string" -- no base64 encoding please

Yes, we are just not using the liturgical name "octet string" :-)

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email