Re: [Cbor] Record proposal

Kris Zyp <> Thu, 11 November 2021 14:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAFE53A1447 for <>; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 06:09:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6CxlLRh5LvSZ for <>; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 06:09:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D36313A111C for <>; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 06:08:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x15so24774863edv.1 for <>; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 06:08:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=N5neW+hW0Ks9m2+YeQELaApQjffbHrhA4BwZU8Bidbs=; b=VDi2DD+0YmCBkgpj32EdjOn0kuvCIkUGicdWMtfsWBB/wpTgdWS7aWeS+zhmlMkY59 wjIaUMPlMt2V88RZEft1FteAMk7PcaMSngZ6wWNXLMQZEQxoDiyyVLq4ETytVx9uf1XL gGrhhDpHVdzODPY/9VoGtQ3EHjCeBwbC2eo/Q6QHjo+oSuTAabV49iN3BxNRsocSFcJZ u20ud0s+Qy1qgt2Y1CkN2Xl0cM9IPb+tbx89j8YuvgVngWeug9t7Dcqq6xI7LCoZnWLU NY8Vlzyz5L+FqjEdRysKySUSRpPMxIa23LA0xL9NrUEOYkaQ++SDhEcS2Gcy54xY384U qUIw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=N5neW+hW0Ks9m2+YeQELaApQjffbHrhA4BwZU8Bidbs=; b=nvij4M6Nfgpz/t785wED4XQ+gschyiVu4wUSnvp78tP/BoGnZi+6Ypt6v9swW2UhZY tS9Z7zsLuPM62EqclSE2noragzkeXgmWrITyCw+b+kEWGQkuuHfRWGO00p2aH4OOYzQM 6QSZ/GUgJuzt05UujFZ6AR19BGdeQwrbzjRd+lXlSojbiMmDm1K88TEKUjZerwOZb3pM BggPPs8GEU34pxcl+be1PmRmgVRVCafpXX8/DrXEx63lFkposZEpNn4IyZSQokrmc2og kXULFO912u93EJnme3QxbbjASZb73Sm1mzFi1hVCn9eqDbOBAW7kaHNI59ftKAyF+kq8 pAiA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532iylI+gkpUBKvzlPTbkdHw6KfU3/hGU+e1ffXxys5K6Ts8Gjr0 iy6Z0DWG8KksW3RiCpUX1QfMdZwAAKJ1alPSXdo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyXLFaSgIjXAzvFIPygiX+lcDs9bf74Md6293zoHhJBT2IXH3O5LeI7Njl39iQ934CVGQbSMppBipiPCs9a+q4=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:c14b:: with SMTP id dp11mr9870651ejc.294.1636639735373; Thu, 11 Nov 2021 06:08:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Kris Zyp <>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 07:08:44 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Christian Amsüss <>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Record proposal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 14:09:42 -0000

Thank you for the update, I appreciate it! And I am happy to hear that
Packed CBOR is continuing to progress. I found the referenced slide,
and appreciate the reference. I see it also mentioned the need for
independent implementations of packed. Hopefully cbor-x is helpful in
regards to having an independent implementation for testing (I believe
it is the only JS implementation of cbor-packed)? If you want any help
testing this against the output or input of other implementations,
would be happy to help with that. Anyway, again, this is great to see;
packing and record structure tags are quite distinct, but definitely
complementary in bringing more efficient encodings!

I certainly understand that any standardization efforts take a lot of
time, and don't want to rush all you who are very busy, I'm sure. I
really just wanted to verify that the record tag registration
submission was on the correct track. I think there are about 100
entries in the tag registry (across a dozen or so specifications), and
I want to make sure the record tag submission (submitted as using the template from RFC
8949 per the registry) is in line with the protocol used for tag
registrations and is on the correct track. Is it fair to say that the
registry status of the record tag/tag 105/26880-27135 is that it has a
submitted registration proposal and under review? And from what I
understand from the registry's explanation of registration procedures,
since this is not a tag in the 0-23 range, it does not involve any
actual IETF standards work, but rather just requires the submitted
specification, presumably for review and approval. Is that a
reasonable understanding of the current status of record tag
registration, or did you have different intentions for this?

> Hope to see you there

Did you want me to attend a meeting for discussion of this?

Anyway, thank you again for all your efforts on CBOR, greatly appreciated!