IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Wed, 31 August 2022 00:41 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
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 04261C14CF1C for <auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 17:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com
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 O_zhLRyUn4As for <auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 17:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 876C2C14F740 for <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 17:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 42683 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2022 00:41:18 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=a6b8.630eae2e.k2208; bh=tMfVfKeswGsNE1cuh5c6RL8rvYQigHAJB3q+HiZgE20=; b=ART3Hlx/G7zWh8wk0HcQzydMZBNhNG6QGwbNYjT5HyOVdY1lhgvD1eqPLHkoJiYhGKa3t1Wi7UelOEgX+ak865Q+DnIHf+a0lCJ1BYINeeW+Q/es3LCq6+EuL6dbxTIvhaJ3a2bcV4DGKGUVrPYQU295uWilmmxsnj1wQlDuJ/Fi3d5IutFrf/Kt3NdQVnxpV0D2PBJDJ53a/cwRJb6rY16yvI3gDm7FzDPJjPBs00Sgo4eTa2rDQOc7mZBjt8Au0hzGFYNXMvwri+Cf+6Nq3C6+y7Ips/ueO8hCOp+DWWbJDcIONWsNGSYIjdCYTuykHS0Wbiu3CkhMhvADnoQBRw==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 31 Aug 2022 00:41:18 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 99B0748B51F9; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 20:41:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5496A48B51DB; Tue, 30 Aug 2022 20:41:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 20:41:18 -0400
Message-ID: <871e8e04-2008-d6ab-e569-b63615e41c7c@iecc.com>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Sandy Ginoza <sginoza@amsl.com>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>, cbor-ads@ietf.org, CBOR Working Group <cbor-chairs@ietf.org>, Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
In-Reply-To: <444D42FB-2815-4B73-9CBE-11E34AD187C8@tzi.org>
References: <197391A1-257C-445D-9AA4-E91AE9F65CD5@amsl.com> <444D42FB-2815-4B73-9CBE-11E34AD187C8@tzi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/_fF4RHOZIQXHil5L1KLj1DfEJUI>
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 00:41:26 -0000

> The <artwork workaround works for me.
> The <contact approach is working around an inappropriate enforcement in 
> xml2rfc of a senseless rule

While I agree that someday we will relax the RFC 7997 rules for what's 
allowed in running text, we're not going to do it one code point at a time 
and we haven't done it today.  If you suggest to the RSWG expanding the 
allowable character set as a work item, I'll support it.

> Anyway, for expediency, let’s go with <artwork.

Seems reasonable.

R's,
John



>
> Sent from mobile, sorry for terse
>
>> On 31. Aug 2022, at 01:49, 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.
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Example of artwork:
>>
>>   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
>>
>>
>> Otherwise, perhaps we use ASCII only (i.e., 65025 <= ct <= 65535) until non-ASCII characters can be used more liberally.
>>
>>
>> Any other ideas?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sandy
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2022, at 3:40 PM, Sandy Ginoza <sginoza@amsl.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Carsten,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the nudge — the document has been updated and is now ready for publication.  Apologies for the delay!
>>>
>>> RFC Editor/sg
>>>
>>>>> On Aug 30, 2022, at 7:54 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2022-08-19, at 22:22, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OLD:
>>>>> encoded.  For instance, an Android APK (as used to transfer and store
>>>>> an application) may be identified as a ZIP file.  Additionally, both
>>>>> NEW:
>>>>> encoded.  For instance, an Android Package Kit APK (as used to transfer and store
>>>>> an application) may be identified as a ZIP file.  Additionally, both
>>>>
>>>> Is this something the RFC editor wants to pick up?
>>>> It seems to me we are done here after this change.
>>>>
>>>> Grüße, Carsten
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email