Re: [Cbor] 7049bis: Diagnostic notation gaps

Carsten Bormann <> Tue, 22 September 2020 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B97F33A1A0F for <>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o21TS0ade2om for <>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E97FC3A1A0A for <>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Bwvxp2N5FzyVb; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:45:50 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:45:49 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 622503949.8158211-1e30bf56deac1dc9e267477f0ea61ce0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] 7049bis: Diagnostic notation gaps
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 21:45:55 -0000

On 2020-09-11, at 22:46, Carsten Bormann <> wrote:
>   Should we add this to 7049bis (which would be new functionality) or should we do this in a separate document?
>   (We did this for other diagnostic notation extensions, which are listed in RFC 8610.)

I think we now have a clear way forward for diagnostic notation for both 5fff/7fff and NaN payloads.

The former ostensibly has not really been a gap in RFC 7049, so we could address it in a clarification in 7049bis.

The latter is a new invention and so cannot really part of 7049bis, which is slated for Internet Standard and needs to meet the spirit of RFC 6410, which says:

   Minor revisions and the removal of unused
   features are expected, but a significant revision may require that
   the specification accumulate more experience at Proposed Standard
   before progressing.

Extending diagnostic notation is not a significant revision in that it will shatter the CBOR universe, but it is still new untested code that really should be in a separate document.

I would therefore like to close #204 and #205 now, and (if we want to treat 5fff/7fff as a clarification) add a small pull request for just that.

Grüße, Carsten