Re: [Cbor] Draft for an error indication tag (Fwd: I-D Action: draft-richter-cbor-error-tag-00.txt)

I like it.  One thing I would suggest is if a map is used, that a couple of keys are suggested, but not required:

{
  name: "maybe-a-uri-or-classname",
  code: 404, // HTTP-style error code
  message: "human-readable description",
  fileName: "file where error occurred"
  lineNumber: 12, // line in file where error occurred
  columnNumber: 6 // column in file where error occurred
}

This should get a bunch of error patterns to interoperate quickly, including most things derived from JavaScript's Error class.

> On Jan 29, 2019, at 3:27 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
> Jörg Richter has suggested defining a CBOR Tag for error indications, beyond what the “undefined” simple value can already do.
> I have helped a bit in writing this up.
> Maybe we can have a quick sanity check before we ask IANA to register this Tag.
> (The suggested value will be 101, ASCII ‘e’ for error, exception.)
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-richter-cbor-error-tag-00.txt
>> Date: January 29, 2019 at 11:22:56 GMT+1
>> To: <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
>> Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org
>> Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i-d-announce/rLnFJ7vaZKn5EcvR869Ol8tAqAk>
>> 
>> 
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>> 
>> 
>>        Title           : Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tag for Error Indications
>>        Authors         : Joerg Richter
>>                          Carsten Bormann
>> 	Filename        : draft-richter-cbor-error-tag-00.txt
>> 	Pages           : 4
>> 	Date            : 2019-01-29
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>   The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) is a data
>>   format whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small
>>   code size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the
>>   need for version negotiation.
>> 
>>   In CBOR, one point of extensibility is the definition of CBOR tags.
>>   While CBOR defines representations for null values and for an
>>   undefined value, there is no convention for expressing errors or
>>   exceptions in data structures, where the actual value desired could
>>   not be calculated due to an error.  The present specification defines
>>   a tag for such error indications, enabling the addition of varying
>>   levels of detail.
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richter-cbor-error-tag/
>> 
>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-richter-cbor-error-tag-00
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-richter-cbor-error-tag-00
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor