IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [auth48] Final question - AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9277 <draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic-12> for your review

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 31 August 2022 00:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14E9FC1524BE; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 17:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.707
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (bad RSA signature)" header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ChKzrhncAHhx; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 17:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC7DFC14CE40; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 17:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9385918783; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 20:52:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id BQu6VIdPrc3g; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 20:52:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1587118069; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 20:52:45 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1661907165; bh=f5+ciEYory78wrc3gqHrTqaC/g2pddrUE0VQ5lLuLoA=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=gQz7FQaCGPW+Jej98dAfS+yM/Ty98JKTKLsyImviuzsP3QlGRvIJX2cDmGXRDYWf3 +1FHH7XCq2ilbAkUBLzL/r2TRyHQ0L3AlbJvVHAesz3fnCE7wivMRYTFVXs7h+2Z6q I6yg7vgBvOILSi/ntWrOUv9Tv1g0mxH49Oyb7s5yliJXy99py8VZrA2vYjsln7w5eK hL3HUdWd96LFAbEgtc1rw251Yhl8avHYkflQbPWCuDdqiV0tDNP8hxVhCaARBOjeJX v6QkTgRy0UqFkdhR0IVMG5HTefSud7k55d60d/H614Bb8s4V3AVdzOXwGOm9pJ3upB qBJdFmbKQdv1A==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9155504; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 20:32:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Sandy Ginoza <sginoza@amsl.com>
cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, cbor-ads@ietf.org, CBOR Working Group <cbor-chairs@ietf.org>, =?utf-8?Q?Christian_Ams=C3=BCss?= <christian@amsuess.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <197391A1-257C-445D-9AA4-E91AE9F65CD5@amsl.com>
References: <27848.1660330319@localhost> <385EE1AC-8E6A-4ACF-BD78-0163B93D7AFD@tzi.org> <151573.1660398757@dooku> <CAL0qLwa5V_2KLJPMfiwJsutFJJvbOyUm4CW4Lj_ymTBaEm1H8w@mail.gmail.com> <77BB1EF9-D4D1-4286-BCB1-3CE8CD0D16E6@tzi.org> <974C602B-ADA2-4351-A96B-466E46CB20C3@tzi.org> <835A0D17-6801-43E4-B0DB-97F1FBE98EA2@amsl.com> <197391A1-257C-445D-9AA4-E91AE9F65CD5@amsl.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 20:32:19 -0400
Message-ID: <13117.1661905939@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/P7dW2Y20ciRw5SqqVoJEcuwxsCw>
Subject: Re: [auth48] Final question - AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9277 <draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic-12> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 00:32:28 -0000

Sandy Ginoza <sginoza@amsl.com> wrote:
    > Hi Carsten, Michael,

    > Actually, we see that the XML uses <contact> as follows:

    >    Note that no tag numbers are assigned for Content-Format numbers in
    > the range 65025 <contact fullname="≤"/> ct <contact fullname="≤"/>
    > 65535.

*I* didn't do this.
We authored in markdown, so maybe Carsten intended this, but I doubt it...
Maybe kramdown did this, but that seems unlikely to me.

    > This is inappropriate use of the <contact> element.  I understand it’s
    > not ideal, but may we either switch this to <artwork> or go with ASCII
    > only?

Works for me.

    >    Note that no tag numbers are assigned for Content-Format numbers in
    > the following range:

    >    <artwork>65025 ≤ ct ≤ 65535</artwork>

    > You can see the output here:

    > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/sandy.html#appendix-B
    > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/sandy.txt
    > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/sandy.pdf


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email