IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Cbor] Re: Private tag numbers / 1010

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 16 December 2024 04:12 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F8C7C14F68F for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Dec 2024 20:12:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 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, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 OlN-NkaD7lCC for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Dec 2024 20:12:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07DCDC14CE36 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Dec 2024 20:12:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p548dc3ec.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.195.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4YBRNw2mDPzDCbL; Mon, 16 Dec 2024 05:12:32 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.300.87.4.3\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <20241216065949.70c7891e@nuclight.lan>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 05:12:30 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8AE5B367-C8DD-46B5-95D8-DB2D70A24B4B@tzi.org>
References: <AS2PR09MB6342AB1E5DFF19EDFB65F25F8C609@AS2PR09MB6342.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com> <8AD1E3E6-A474-4D4D-B404-66172DF8C481@tzi.org> <20230723010552.01d80062@nuclight> <c40b9570-5e22-73c8-744f-1e141edea875@gmail.com> <20241215031403.63e93131@nuclight.lan> <755d93c9-d253-4558-b6ac-d3e1f4555535@gmail.com> <20241216065949.70c7891e@nuclight.lan>
To: Vadim Goncharov <vadimnuclight@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.300.87.4.3)
Message-ID-Hash: V4HYL5W3BIECTMTR4JZL6T6SKUVXDFXB
X-Message-ID-Hash: V4HYL5W3BIECTMTR4JZL6T6SKUVXDFXB
X-MailFrom: cabo@tzi.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-cbor.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>, Tony Putman <Anthony.Putman@dyson.com>, "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Cbor] Re: Private tag numbers / 1010
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)" <cbor.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/-IsYFn9V-Mcl6lgqh6mElajyJus>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:cbor-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cbor-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cbor-leave@ietf.org>

On 16. Dec 2024, at 04:59, Vadim Goncharov <vadimnuclight@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Are there discussions? In list of allocated tags I haven't found
> anything like this (like 1010).

You can find the IANA registry for CBOR tags at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags/cbor-tags.xhtml

Scroll down (or search for) 1010.

This has a reference to 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rundgren-cotx/04/

...which contains the definition of the tag, which is a bit loose (it only strictly defines the type identifier to be a text string, but then all examples and further discussions imply that these text strings are URIs [notably not IRIs]; it is also confused on whether the allocation of 1010 has actually happened [“preliminary”???]).
But that’s how 1010 is defined; when that tag finds use I would expect the user community to work a bit on tightening that document.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status