IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 19 August 2022 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 7E826C14CE20; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 3BDZDeai05rR; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::15]) (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 5D65BC14F6E5; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.149] (p5089abf5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.171.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4M8Y875XfyzDCbY; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 22:22:15 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwa5V_2KLJPMfiwJsutFJJvbOyUm4CW4Lj_ymTBaEm1H8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 22:22:15 +0200
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>, Sandy Ginoza <sginoza@amsl.com>, 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-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 682633335.329053-c873e7be38a42f902459eef39a5a6df9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <77BB1EF9-D4D1-4286-BCB1-3CE8CD0D16E6@tzi.org>
References: <27848.1660330319@localhost> <385EE1AC-8E6A-4ACF-BD78-0163B93D7AFD@tzi.org> <151573.1660398757@dooku> <CAL0qLwa5V_2KLJPMfiwJsutFJJvbOyUm4CW4Lj_ymTBaEm1H8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/kQiiJ5gNWLNuaCe50stHaXnh7vs>
Subject: Re: [auth48] [AD - Murray] 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: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 20:22:25 -0000

On 2022-08-13, at 17:51, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
> […]
> I agree, but I think we should just expand it once as Android Package Kit.
> 
> Good enough for me.

It may not have been entirely obvious how to turn this into an actual change, so let me propose:

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

(This does expand APK, but does not claim that “Android Package Kit” is the expansion of what is probably no longer an initialism.)

APK only appears in one place in the RFC-to-be, so this should be all that is needed.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email