IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sat, 25 May 2013 20:08 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 6F88121F8763 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 May 2013 13:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, 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 m2FQOKG9uuR2 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 May 2013 13:07:55 -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 46DAC21F88FB for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 May 2013 13:07:54 -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 r4PK7j50016835; Sat, 25 May 2013 22:07:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p548914E3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.20.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C8B8239B6; Sat, 25 May 2013 22:07:44 +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: <CAK3OfOg48ZDF5XnM5ncWtTzBX9dwZXsnJm2TbOanC2UpL_oDew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 22:07:44 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <693D28F5-262E-46B6-B0EE-8FFEB6F2F276@tzi.org>
References: <61CB1D18-BABC-4C77-93E6-A9E8CDA8326B@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOjm0B8rA_BEkQKUJqTPuV+A8=gcDi+THD1xu-JtFSJ1gA@mail.gmail.com> <E5BA4DFA-6E2E-44AA-91B2-716D595C3DF0@tzi.org> <CAK3OfOg48ZDF5XnM5ncWtTzBX9dwZXsnJm2TbOanC2UpL_oDew@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: Sat, 25 May 2013 20:08:01 -0000

On May 23, 2013, at 19:19, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

> what the heck was so wrong with PER?

That is actually an interesting story waiting to be analyzed.

PER was enough of a problem that it became one of the major forces killing H.323.

Of course, that was at a time when we didn't yet all understand that relying on closed-source implementations was creating tons of technical debt.
Also, this was before sourceforge, stackexchange, github, and all the other things that help us manage complex collaborations much better today.
So I'm not sure the same level of complexity (or even PER itself) would die such a horrible death today.
(Actually, EXI might qualify as a nice demo that it can work quite well today.)

But I'm trying to work on the other end of the complexity scale, so somebody else has to write that story down...

Grüße, Carsten

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