IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8610 (6278)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 04 September 2020 19:22 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 3D94D3A0EF1 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 12:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 T3BvRo8J7PT3 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 12:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-f193.google.com (mail-il1-f193.google.com [209.85.166.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48F943A0EE1 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 12:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-f193.google.com with SMTP id b17so7340439ilh.4 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 12:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+tPmdDsEvuXLz5OV64DrWA9CibGR+c2MEZQF/d24dAk=; b=loR/UsRJ0QCOWgxjQcwWZ5/fTvhedYcHJWYZB4uYF62vCxIy0wP9s/jANO1V8kPOON IbL5ipMHy6Pde7SHtozK76EY2CaWuDbHp3ojHg662EiN5jBftlNm2mQ0oI40jB6KbJhC 35Cnb5CqJ4Ftsu0DJ9CYkyAQJUqCJjC4oSoXoXHOPgbnbr+nzQNy9KeJLkUPMW0nJi72 rGuTjbP5t/SVVXgwJ9zGt9Y7Zmbxflxt04GP1BNbN/rpEVm5TJciW+UzDFw8OJq4hN39 uGSloivlcsuKsRcZ3Tu8Bv4PcNp6U/f2GF6DdXI0Yp2SM8JZjdFQ1ZKBZEqOm3gTBDZ1 rUDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ShhrjIBI2p8KuLEMpYQEr29WrjvJBRu5s4sbvbYYxMd+X42kF lu05sMa9EBmna7OjMos2M8JpIkZ2O/wJMP0N3tk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyrJRD7ZhhDAlnyEuy3UelkpaQzXqG7yU36uhgdFlooTMLulHvh7szLjmZiEmNR++L3okDBOg7cJJsyTDAo8OQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:d482:: with SMTP id p2mr9524435ilg.9.1599247358325; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 12:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200904001702.6E249F40781@rfc-editor.org> <ABA95628-D8A6-4E8F-A3CD-B51EF5B9ADF9@tzi.org> <000001d68260$096e6770$1c4b3650$@ewellic.org>
In-Reply-To: <000001d68260$096e6770$1c4b3650$@ewellic.org>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 15:22:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJKwGbfczzZjYbSNgd2v0MZ1nxLYS4ttO9t6YGAG3zxBiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, eds@reric.net, cbor@ietf.org, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, christoph.vigano@uni-bremen.de, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/833vE3WgYVJqJivVS9C4o7g1QC0>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 12:33:14 -0700
Subject: Re: [Cbor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8610 (6278)
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, 04 Sep 2020 19:22:40 -0000

Still more reason why it's HFDU: the fix for this isn't
straightforward, and should be handled as part of a revision.

Barry


On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 10:06 PM Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org> wrote:
>
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > BCHAR = %x20-26 / %x28-5B / %x5D-7E / %x80-10FFFD / SESC / CRLF
>
> Actually, if the range is meant to end at U+10FFFD (thus excluding the noncharacters U+10FFFE and U+10FFFF), then it should also exclude the following:
>
> 1. the U+xxFFFE and U+xxFFFF noncharacters in every other plane
> 2. noncharacters U+FDD0 through U+FDEF
> 3. surrogate code points 0xD800 through 0xDFFF, which aren't even Unicode scalar values (hence not marked with "U+" notation)
>
> Of course this goes for the definitions of PCHAR, SCHAR, and SESC as well.
>
> A new symbol, NONASCII, could resolve all this:
>
> NONASCII = %x80-D7FF / %xE000-FDCF / %xFDF0-FFFD
>          / %x10000-1FFFD
>          / %x20000-2FFFD
>          / %x30000-3FFFD
>          / %x40000-4FFFD
>          / %x50000-5FFFD
>          / %x60000-6FFFD
>          / %x70000-7FFFD
>          / %x80000-8FFFD
>          / %x90000-9FFFD
>          / %xA0000-AFFFD
>          / %xB0000-BFFFD
>          / %xC0000-CFFFD
>          / %xD0000-DFFFD
>          / %xE0000-EFFFD
>          / %xF0000-FFFFD
>          / %x100000-10FFFD
> [...]
> SCHAR = %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E / NONASCII / SESC
> SESC = "\" (%x20-7E / NONASCII)
> [...]
> BCHAR = %x20-26 / %x28-5B / %x5D-7E / NONASCII / SESC / CRLF
> [...]
> PCHAR = %x20-7E / NONASCII
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email