IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] tags for non-CBOR Content-Formats (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic-07.txt)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 26 January 2022 09:32 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 DF69F3A2D55 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 01:32:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 nopIOjKEM3ml for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 01:32:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 346FE3A2D40 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 01:32:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a6b7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.166.183]) (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 4JkJQz6R5xzDCfk; Wed, 26 Jan 2022 10:32:27 +0100 (CET)
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: <776204e6-da11-b177-6b14-657a45e9a48b@sandelman.ca>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 10:32:27 +0100
Cc: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 664882347.386193-d24ebb924b6fd102f35103812e9d8420
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E556862A-FB27-4B64-A4F2-3B655B02D6E9@tzi.org>
References: <163957657258.13411.7816087918094513382@ietfa.amsl.com> <4768.1639592647@localhost> <86C6CE04-19A2-43D2-B10A-935F68D1E469@tzi.org> <776204e6-da11-b177-6b14-657a45e9a48b@sandelman.ca>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/2W7oTNIfpNDHvABouT_vf9OobTo>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] tags for non-CBOR Content-Formats (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic-07.txt)
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: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 09:32:40 -0000

> I have rewritten the introduction slightly, explaining that the entire document is a BCP,

I’m actually not sure that is the right label for this document.
There is a normative intent, and there is substantive new normative content.

> but that the appendix is even more "informative"
> (Maybe I should say, "speculative", but that feels wrong.  It not that we don't think it will work.  It's that we don't know if it's exactly valuable)

Well, let’s rather say not all of us know it’s valuable :-)

> The argument is therefore that by using a consistent "CBOR", that the human gets no information from it, and has to look at the second tag.
> 
> I am willing to buy this argument, but I still feel squeamish about it.
> I would certainly like to hear from others on this topic.

I would, too.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email