Re: [Cbor] CBOR tag range IANA allocation policy

Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@intel.com> Fri, 26 July 2019 00:06 UTC

Return-Path: <thiago.macieira@intel.com>
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 C759B120265 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 47nGLv7rWrth for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF06C120224 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Jul 2019 17:06:21 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,308,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="369369227"
Received: from orsmsx101.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.225.128]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2019 17:06:21 -0700
Received: from tjmaciei-mobl1.localnet (10.54.75.134) by ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.225.128) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:06:20 -0700
From: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@intel.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, <cbor@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 17:06:21 -0700
Message-ID: <15044986.HgQyyibD5o@tjmaciei-mobl1>
Organization: Intel Corporation
In-Reply-To: <1A8A7E20-A92C-4242-92EB-950CD1F93B27@tzi.org>
References: <07D48905-77B6-447B-8CEB-971CD0568FB9@seantek.com> <584C141B-9704-4BA2-BD30-21E2FE4D6F90@seantek.com> <1A8A7E20-A92C-4242-92EB-950CD1F93B27@tzi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Originating-IP: [10.54.75.134]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/4gBU0fFNfrOx0zDrYi1zSjSCkxM>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] CBOR tag range IANA allocation policy
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, 26 Jul 2019 00:06:24 -0000

On Thursday, 25 July 2019 15:25:23 PDT Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2019, at 18:19, Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>; wrote:
> > 24-255 = RFC Required
> 
> I like that.
> (That includes the independent stream.  But there is a level of quality
> checking in publishing an RFC, so only high quality specifications will get
> these.  Of course, the designated expert *could* do the same quality
> checking, but there may be a slightly higher tendency to just give in among
> us weaker DEs.)

The problem is less the quality checking and more the time required to write 
an RFC, with the overhead required of it.

For example, I am sitting on a bunch of simple types I wanted to recommend, 
but never had the time to review, much less write RFCs for.

https://gitlab.com/thiagomacieira/qtbase/blob/master/src/corelib/
serialization/cbor-tags-geometry.rst
https://gitlab.com/thiagomacieira/qtbase/blob/master/src/corelib/
serialization/cbor-tag-bitarray.rst

As you can see from the tag numbers, I wrote them a while ago but never told 
anyone about them. I find that those are generically useful types that 
probably should exist in the 32-255 range, but I'd like the community to agree 
with me.

And if we conclude that the range is correct, then I probably won't find the 
time. Nor do I think that an RFC is required to define a couple of tags for 2D 
and 3D geometry types.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel System Software Products