IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Wed, 22 May 2013 15:47 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 0B73A21F91A0 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 08:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.024
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.024 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.425, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 TFViCp8IMfKH for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 May 2013 08:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-f52.google.com (mail-oa0-f52.google.com [209.85.219.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB5321F9626 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 08:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id h1so2794598oag.25 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 May 2013 08:47:30 -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=JDJbSL93PLR2a06IW64N9G2Co+x9QZwiscx9o+j5tmM=; b=nA7qq/g9kHVzaa45oMli2a3Fr4Q1MTYV6gl6ZllsAQ6/KjPrJZRW8PUlt2WrLFVkys P714M3Pn3weW5e0xoXxP6p7tZ9aIYRb0fOJxlu4hnFB6keDwr9IVvURuxFTBUzbHTMoq 16Wy+s9kiRCAd8ScbZ7dLyvQ5/Q4Ob489hNpakt+zkKc2OhiWuU96rKjInnhMI4MSapQ uSpsvD8FDUCNhoCGDNrYCfHIOmkVd8fcBmnGfqYSqCT75GJ6+5PuASwICpmTwn/TFEDM gGqejN3nkv8Tu/zKdag4prldQgPDwFgoi6YynNKoVU8OyMQyYn98geInCiHZJ6I2x2jT heEg==
X-Received: by 10.182.241.194 with SMTP id wk2mr5221914obc.77.1369237650804; Wed, 22 May 2013 08:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.3.137 with HTTP; Wed, 22 May 2013 08:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <61CB1D18-BABC-4C77-93E6-A9E8CDA8326B@vpnc.org>
References: <61CB1D18-BABC-4C77-93E6-A9E8CDA8326B@vpnc.org>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 08:47:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbcUJJoPJYdCOGSoa8fJfqj+R5RttjDtG5zXDirUV9OMQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: 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 15:47:47 -0000

At first read it looks interesting, and can definitely see that a lot
of thought was put into the design. There have, however, been a number
of previous attempts at alternative compact binary representations (or
at least discussions) that did not seem to really go anywhere. What is
the current implementation status of this? Are there implementations
available or any existing plans to use this new format in a specific
app or spec? I'm largely just curious about the context and motivation
behind this...

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> Greetings again. Carsten Bormann and I have proposed a new compact binary format, CBOR: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-cbor>. The design goals for the format are listed in the introduction; most notably, code compactness is considered as important as message compactness, and we think we got a lot of the latter with no sacrifice of the former.
>
> A few appsy folks have already contributed ideas, but we would like to hear more. Given its applicability to protocols across the Applications area (and actually across the IETF), we think this would be an appropriate to be an appsawg work item if others here think so as well. Please let us know what you think.
>
> --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