Re: [Cbor] πŸ”” WGLC on draft-ietf-cbor-array-tags-03

Jim Schaad <> Sat, 09 March 2019 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5F9D124B91; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 11:18:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 514m-lUx6n07; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 11:18:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E70412426E; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 11:18:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Jude ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 11:18:10 -0800
From: Jim Schaad <>
To: <>
CC: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 11:18:06 -0800
Message-ID: <033701d4d6ac$d4b1fb60$7e15f220$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQJDckXT1PNyaRbuIeGp9sN/08XZzKUlaSUA
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: []
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] =?utf-8?q?=F0=9F=94=94_WGLC_on_draft-ietf-cbor-array-tags?= =?utf-8?q?-03?=
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: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 19:18:19 -0000

Here is my WGLC review of the document.

1.  In section 2.1 I had a brief moment of frisson on the use of the term binary16 rather than float16 in Table 1.  There is no need to change it, I just was momentarily jolted.

2.  In section 2.1 - Slightly odd to say that ll is lsb as it is two bits long.  No need to change it, but the RSE may notice it.

3.  In section 2.1 - suggest s/Only the big endian variant is used./Only the big endian variant is assigned a tag./

4. In section 2.1 - There should be a note about the fate of the tags that would be <float, signed>.  Are they reserved or open for assignment.

5. In section 2.1 - After reading the last sentence, I am no longer sure what the fate of the 8-bit little endian tags are.  It would appear that they are being assigned from this paragraph.

6. In section 3 - It would make thing clearer if the description here noted that Homogeneous Arrays are one-dimensional array.

7. There should be a security consideration in terms of the Homogeneous type in terms of a naΓ―ve implementation.  The description contains the text "The element type  of the array is thus determined by the application type of the first array element"  Since it is not clear that this choosing of the application type does or does not still require that each element of the array be correctly type checked while reading the output is done, this requirement needs to be highlighted in the event that an element which does not following the homogeneous type follows.  Additionally, it might need to be noted that this does not imply that the same elements are going to be present in each element in the array.