IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Thu, 23 May 2013 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@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 396BD21F97B3 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 13:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.052
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.546, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 yg3GI4LaPe2K for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 13:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f177.google.com (mail-lb0-f177.google.com [209.85.217.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE2021F9021 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2013 13:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id o10so3830985lbi.22 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2013 13:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=j3ToIS1uyN+GKBH/PF5RoW9zMGugizNtF5M+3pTJ/QA=; b=jooh8xy9Hf8uObSt6pCvNZf4cKzJ1i3M+gB3vFbPUI/+7GjjBVZcXuveBJ/APvncyX FIcSmqg/uehCH9UxQU+6sGWtpbZHbxZQy31FzPK+aJD5/sJVU1nOFYnyFKBR9TipseKz rh81z4ojYRsDY1SuACfhhx9toQ2lSvJfo2CCo27wk3lASBdRBkUsEerzcAWrKkfqKaY+ +aNy1guFS79wf0rTzai9OTeU2wz4cFiJrXWIbZGp9hokgVEbOy63CjUmeIwFtmYzI7Se BEoGls0uUmeM2Bk1EXXc9gya805MZhnjAyrB0YkyWTDr9TXHkusVDHHU5SKFL3HRGFBy aPLQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.73.135 with SMTP id l7mr7371560lbv.42.1369340058338; Thu, 23 May 2013 13:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.200.169 with HTTP; Thu, 23 May 2013 13:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6C80DF35-E465-4107-B2B5-34D8D1C2F2CF@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> <CABP7RbdBFBKsXhJ=Y0CowWQBK_WDBmPkAT_+dUj1xic-=J=Jug@mail.gmail.com> <6C80DF35-E465-4107-B2B5-34D8D1C2F2CF@vpnc.org>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 16:14:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwiWYLBS+H6oKCfByUJVXL8bk293WuFY_M2fnBM2iuvxGA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="14dae93d8eacc10d8804dd6853a9"
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 20:57:01 -0000

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:

> On May 23, 2013, at 11:35 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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?"
>
> Just a note that this is one of the only ones that people are groaning
> about that has an Internet Draft and might go through the IETF consensus
> process. Carsten and I (maybe naively) thought that doing this in this
> environment, instead of say posting ephemeral specs on a web page and not
> having it be clear where the community fit it, was a good thing.


I don't remember you being appointed to address the issue.

Since almost all the response to your proposal has been that people don't
like your design choices, and since you make it abundantly clear that you
are not interested in our input, I can't quite see where a consensus is
going to come. Unless that is the consensus is that your proposal sucks.

I would certainly object to a format that was counted being granted any
degree of IETF recognition lest someone try to force me to use it in the
future.

My experience of coding ASN.1 DER (in C and javascript) leads me to reject
any counted scheme as a non starter.


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email