IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Cbor] Re: CBOR-YANG/SID

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 02 August 2024 20:51 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 88609C1DFD34; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 13:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rzXAvk0eld8s; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 13:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1337DC1E0D89; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 13:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p5089a794.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.167.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4WbJ0Q2Jr0zDChC; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 22:51:34 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3776.700.51\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <24615.1722628087@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2024 22:51:22 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7E75452A-79A5-4B8B-9E6A-9CEF1C090D14@tzi.org>
References: <24615.1722628087@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3776.700.51)
Message-ID-Hash: UCM3NAWQFECMBWMC5WMC77GWXINJ2T6G
X-Message-ID-Hash: UCM3NAWQFECMBWMC5WMC77GWXINJ2T6G
X-MailFrom: cabo@tzi.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-cbor.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: core@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Cbor] Re: CBOR-YANG/SID
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)" <cbor.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/64D1jSdc_IGJvD21aV8hV4_XVKo>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:cbor-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cbor-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cbor-leave@ietf.org>

On 2. Aug 2024, at 21:48, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> RFC9595 came out on Wednesday. HUZZAH!
> It feels like forever.
> 
> Many people have asked why RFC9254 did not say that a YANG date would be
> stored as a CBOR TAG 0 or 1.  I actually just assumed, and I think my (ruby)
> library did as well that it would be that way, and there was an
> interoperation issue discovered.  Oops.
> There are other examples.
> 
> My understanding is that people would like to write an RFC9254bis that
> application protocols could update to.  I'm all for this.
> 
> I believe that we should do this in *CBOR* WG, rather than CORE WG.

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bormann-cbor-yang-standin-00.html

It’s mostly done.  A comment Vancouver was that we should also do hex-string.
We don’t have a tag readymade for that (tag 48 is a bit too narrow, we could hijack that or assign another one just for the standin [1]).

[1]: https://github.com/cabo/yang-standin/issues/5

Grüße, Carsten

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status