IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] Remove .cbordet? (was Re: đź”” WGLC on draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sun, 24 March 2024 00:14 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 7C301C151539; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 XuD63-6r8STC; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:14:00 -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 RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F487C151538; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [130.102.141.33]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4V2Gkm4z5bzDCbb; Sun, 24 Mar 2024 01:13:52 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-93170CDB-8647-4408-BF55-B36F39B9FB24"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <9558918F-009A-49B2-82C1-D761B2D7D831@island-resort.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:13:31 +1000
Cc: Christian AmsĂĽss <christian@amsuess.com>, cbor@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control@ietf.org
Message-Id: <EFC2C83B-9211-4D34-866A-39F292AB471C@tzi.org>
References: <9558918F-009A-49B2-82C1-D761B2D7D831@island-resort.com>
To: "lgl island-resort.com" <lgl@island-resort.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (21E219)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/7q7ACH8bHur7DUvb2REL9n_HAmc>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Remove .cbordet? (was Re: đź”” WGLC on draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control)
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:14:05 -0000

There was a theoretical possibility that keeping .cbordet around could help with adding cddl to older protocols, but we can always can add this when we have an actual use case. We had good agreement in the room on Friday and on the mailing list now that the downside of creating confusion is significant. So I’ll submit a new revision of more-control without the two operators when I have stable ground under the feet.  I don’t think we have to last call that again as all remaining contents has been last called. 

Sent from mobile, sorry for terse

> On 24. Mar 2024, at 06:23, lgl island-resort.com <lgl@island-resort.com> wrote:
> 
> draft-ietf-cbor-cde is in the works and will provide a clear standard definition for CBOR deterministic encoding (CDE). It defines the control operator “.cde”.
> 
> This document defines “.cbordet” which references CDE as defined in RFC 8949.
> 
> I’d like to suggest that we not define “.cbordet” in this document, that section 4 be removed.  We want to move past the definition of CDE in RFC 8949 to the new one in the new document. Let the one-and-only control operator for determinism be “.cde” in draft-ietf-cbor-cde.
> 
> LL
> 
> 
>> On Mar 2, 2024, at 4:01 AM, Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com> wrote:
>> 
>> tl;dr: please review.
>> 
>> Hello CBOR group,
>> 
>> the time box we have set in interim meetings for more control operators
>> has expired, and all the input so far has been processed into -03, which
>> has been deemed ready by the author. The reference implementation
>> understands the newly introduced operators.
>> 
>> * Data tracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control/
>> * HTML version: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control-03.html
>> 
>> Please review the document, and provide your comments and assessment of
>> readiness on the list. This working group last call is open until
>> 2024-03-15.
>> 
>> Best regards
>> Christian
>> _______________________________________________
>> CBOR mailing list
>> CBOR@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email