Re: [Cbor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8610 (6575)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 07 May 2021 04:49 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 EAD203A178E for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 May 2021 21:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2adfyp9ObpW8 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 May 2021 21:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 921A73A175E for <cbor@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 May 2021 21:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p548dcb12.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.203.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FbyZv09QPzyRg; Fri, 7 May 2021 06:46:31 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.80.0.2.43\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <20210506235220.437A7F40791@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 06:46:30 +0200
Cc: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, christoph.vigano@uni-bremen.de, superuser@gmail.com, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, christian@amsuess.com, lgl@island-resort.com, cbor@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <21654B6B-65E0-4772-8B6D-149FC2CB5021@tzi.org>
References: <20210506235220.437A7F40791@rfc-editor.org>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.80.0.2.43)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/0fhPGMaG1-TPmKlgKnP7iA2lb9M>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8610 (6575)
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2021 04:49:06 -0000

Well, representation types for tags are explained in 3.6, so 2.2.3 should have a forward reference to 3.6 instead of trying to restate 3.6 (which it only manages by half).
(Note that the text doesn’t say what #6.24 without parentheses means — the ABNF suggests that the number after the dot should be ai not argument.
In hindsight, maybe using a different character than “.” for tag/argument would have been more suggestive.)

I’d say, this is "hold for document update” so we get a chance to cover the corner case, but it is worth saying now that 3.6 is the detailed description of the exception for #6.nn(tt).

Grüße, Carsten


> On 7. May 2021, at 01:52, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8610,
> "Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and JSON Data Structures".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6575
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
> 
> Section: 2.2.3
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> Where a major type of 6 (Tag) is used, the type
>   of the tagged item can be specified by appending it in parentheses.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> Where a major type of 6 (Tag) is used, the type of the tagged item can be specified by appending it in parentheses. Additionally,
> for major type 6 the value of the argument, not the additional info is what follows the dot.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> The text at the top of page 50 is correct. The examples in 2.2.3 are also correct.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8610 (draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-08)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and JSON Data Structures
> Publication Date    : June 2019
> Author(s)           : H. Birkholz, C. Vigano, C. Bormann
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions
> Area                : Applications and Real-Time
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG