IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 26 July 2021 13:42 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 423603A13B7; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 06:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, 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 y_7uzjdkCh4Y; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 06:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-f48.google.com (mail-lf1-f48.google.com [209.85.167.48]) (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 712523A13BF; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 06:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-f48.google.com with SMTP id h14so15515964lfv.7; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 06:42:22 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RVEDTOZSqUkM9XnxikkiwZBdlCWswys+ClZgO9wCWbM=; b=toRb8k5gebjftkeqU3yNzpc+eDCPbJ8dcl4LDFaZj7r0dykIEj+Ci+VmmuaTTZJpuO NfGKH4GTK5L71ul3jhVf2HUI2uKRdOaRe9jl0Nqr9QZeLT/y///LWJAf4I0JF5ylYVdZ kx1hjiodfXV7qQIhoj2oLi9jbY3IhsU6rdgYZuDFSKa5R0SqVnuOTZhxVbPrquTQu9Rm RFtbylYQzHGahvflVqiwuEemVRVREGg0qVG1zD15yj3YgnH3lHJ9RKK68p+UBc0ZktOW e6k58O+mQlVS/ep/OnSpBsVEYIaJONHX6W7x3smJDuvX4UEMkbmuzzBkjkwcyT5FQ1U6 6W7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532w6OUT3VkJD25NBR3Z3EYaybnGAUtjmy5r66i+NrqoOBC+n8Jm 9KrkTHEmby2MGyHuVqDzJwUY+ZcGBmRbzhEPfoY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxQ0jvI8S5cvT3edFg9oFImCkLUBqdbQt1PRWsKqKAcNTqehRbGYwSnAERinw2kLAbLvmQxdRRtNr45O1Ibc+E=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:532d:: with SMTP id f13mr13166049lfh.123.1627306940427; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 06:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <162729343263.13734.5774247416866337222@ietfa.amsl.com> <ECE0152F-121F-4EC4-94C3-EC7DB4A115D0@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <ECE0152F-121F-4EC4-94C3-EC7DB4A115D0@tzi.org>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 09:42:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+Xf0B2EUFJJ3h19BMKZBcTQaiR4uk+LdoaM5MG_+R1-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: Mohit Sethi <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com>, draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses.all@ietf.org, IETF IoT Directorate <iot-directorate@ietf.org>, cbor@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/8HGVUPAR9uJasHi0lL2ZQYBobM8>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05
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: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:42:32 -0000

> > What would happen to tags 260 and 261. Are they now discouraged/forbidden? Are
> > they meant to co-exist with 52 and 54?
>
> We don’t have a way to “deprecate” tags.
>
> See also <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/6BqK5_jrqyz4JelJNbZ8Uwp3kV0>
>
> So I’d like to keep this document free of such a relative grading.

I generally agree with this... but...

If someone comes to the set of CBOR documents later, with no knowledge
of what's gone on here, they will see 260/261, and they will see
52/54, and they will wonder which to use.  If the working group
collectively says, "We don't care either way; they can choose either,
and we're equally happy," then we're done here.  But if the working
group would rather see such new implementors use 52/54, it would be
useful to have a few words about that in this document, however brief
and however non-normative.

Barry

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status