Re: [Cbor] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-06

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 06 April 2021 16:59 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 EA1823A28FE; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 09:59:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 hGVVzkn-X3Up; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 09:59:39 -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 6FCE63A28FC; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 09:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dc178.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.193.120]) (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 4FFDK53QBDzySH; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 18:59:37 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <161772606961.13833.6830636143413776698@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 18:59:36 +0200
Cc: IETF IoT Directorate <iot-directorate@ietf.org>, cbor@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 639421175.7483799-db4fa40fb476595ae1f1b8a6e667078a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D3A61CA0-2197-4885-BBD6-CE12D70B7AD8@tzi.org>
References: <161772606961.13833.6830636143413776698@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/2x4slE0Ery_BS1AySM-Qwtsr9AY>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-06
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: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 16:59:44 -0000

Hi Ines,

thank you for these comments!

Good catch with the 0b010_01001!  
I should know better (made the same kind of mistake in RFC 7049).

I actually kept in a second expansion of SDNV in Section 2; possibly the RFC editor will strike that, but I find it useful.

All the below are now in https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-oid/commit/9c90d8d

Grüße, Carsten


> On 2021-04-06, at 18:21, Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> Summary:
> 
> The document defines CBOR tags for object identifiers (OIDs).  The document is
> well written.
> 
> Few minor questions/comments.
> 
> Major Issues: None
> 
> Minor Issues: None
> 
> Nits:
> 
> - It would be nice to expand SDNV in section 1.1 instead of Section 2.
> 
> - Section 3.2 - Figure 4-MIB relative object identifier in CBOR:
> 
> 0b010_01001 should be 0b010_00011 ? for major type 2, additional information 3
> bytes
> 
> - Section 7.1:
> 
> -- In order to mention the registry, maybe smth like
> 
>  to assign the CBOR tags --> to assign in the CBOR tags registry the following
>  tags....
> 
> -- It would be nice to have the table with the same structure as the registry
> table (add reference column like in Section 7.2), I think template column does
> not apply here.
> 
> - Section 7.2:
> 
> -- In order to mention the registry, maybe smth similar as Section 7.1?
> 
> Thank you for this document,
> 
> Ines.
> 
>