IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] Gen-ART review of draft-bormann-cbor-04

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 13 August 2013 14:06 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 B772321E8144; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 guUZ88RDRVgE; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:06:32 -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 E88AE21E8123; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 07:06:31 -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 r7DE6QK5020593; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:06:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p5489267F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.38.127]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C710648C; Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:06:25 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A714199D03@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:06:24 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <923B1D67-3325-418A-AFA8-FE1A7543B68D@tzi.org>
References: <A723FC6ECC552A4D8C8249D9E07425A714199D03@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, draft-bormann-cbor.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Gen-ART review of draft-bormann-cbor-04
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: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 14:06:45 -0000

On Aug 12, 2013, at 23:41, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:

> Having more than one way to encode +/- Infinity seems like a recipe for
> generating slightly different canonical output.  For example, in my code
> right now, I think I'm always generating a half-precision Infinity, and
> I'm thinking about changing that to always be the 4-byte version.

Ah, got it.
Infinity/-Infinity are supposed to be covered by the float shortening rule
(which just doesn't work with NaNs).
We'll make that explicit.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email