Re: [Cbor] tags for non-CBOR Content-Formats (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic-07.txt)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 15 December 2021 18:39 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 7837F3A0C25 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 10:39:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 O0Avmu23oABU for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 10:39:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C58B83A0C23 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 10:39:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a436.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.164.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4JDkXy4xY1zDCcT; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 19:38:58 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <4768.1639592647@localhost>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 19:38:58 +0100
Cc: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 661286338.126476-db35589bba64d524d38519ec9dc17864
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <86C6CE04-19A2-43D2-B10A-935F68D1E469@tzi.org>
References: <163957657258.13411.7816087918094513382@ietfa.amsl.com> <4768.1639592647@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/826pQY7vNPL6FyottrFuMNG01PE>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] tags for non-CBOR Content-Formats (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic-07.txt)
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: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 18:39:08 -0000


> On 2021-12-15, at 19:24, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> 
>> 3.  The encoded three byte CBOR byte string containing 0x42_4F_52.
> 
> This is in: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic-07.txt#appendix-C
> I see the argument to make this an appendix since it does not tag CBOR
> content.  I fear that the reviewers and IESG will be confused though.

We could add more text why this is in an appendix.

> 
> Should it really use CBOR as bytes 8-11, since the content is not, in fact, CBOR?

The header is.

> Maybe we should say something else.  I don't feel strongly about this.

I thought about that, but the tag should be the determining factor; keeping the information in two places invites mismatches.

Grüße, Carsten