Re: [Cbor] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-06: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 09 September 2020 21:10 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 994CF3A0E94; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 14:10:45 -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 DvqUz_5uCxCr; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 14:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f48.google.com (mail-io1-f48.google.com [209.85.166.48]) (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 CA4083A0E9E; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 14:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f48.google.com with SMTP id m17so4803248ioo.1; Wed, 09 Sep 2020 14:10:37 -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=hSE/DfRuhxPt8mhP9YFDmUYC5rMxE8zZm3TlBDzP0PA=; b=rJC/sy3hAWPTHvUmAy55zjwga6Akun8/KIZnONfcNl7joW8W92GOFF0D6X52IJ6Auo Sgtx39OdqJP2p455QIITXawA1Rf2KLddJPsIrhVILCa2ShYIZMn2sWFEYmK+fbo8OJPO tQfYjcmvzKnfVa+YH8hb7+arTEFShU8kFryRjsNSO9m6hk8GXjgaJFqWNlgmBwtY96kD SYD7862WLcq2mP622M+7ViZQCnAL2Wu9djC/4hD4bvGGu23hLX86IunVY2+ANOTVwdvG DS01OReDGxVrEDRg/KuOeclkzUI881SzGQ4nbqxDY4xLP1BgSlO1J5p0C7plWK8ktOmn FiGA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533i3u1pqwF3W/76k0lrz4Z/2yFvO5bmjwNJYdRxzNnAT/DKSnM0 Ea2xKz4E9X06boV9bXjzi0oeOpdiVG0T+YChI/U=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyO0WjEVwax1wv/F3WngsVk2HSochRMHUdQZQWqac9ytHMkPbfCgJtaF1qH3yOG0ckPhLghJohhCxTvdilHiVg=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:a613:: with SMTP id q19mr5055571ioi.36.1599685836929; Wed, 09 Sep 2020 14:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <159954801165.22491.8758202978139000058@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJLZJ21Qu=cArjJkh6Bh6qROFYETg4px-3BGw-BVyaUkDw@mail.gmail.com> <78257484-6442-480C-91F1-5F8E4F1C63D6@cisco.com> <C0F6A441-3B04-49FC-A464-551273A6F6DA@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C0F6A441-3B04-49FC-A464-551273A6F6DA@cisco.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 17:10:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+2gujuAXyTjMzZeoFB1Lr1zsesyaXK8GyQPu8u89MSNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
Cc: Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag@ietf.org>, "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "cbor-chairs@ietf.org" <cbor-chairs@ietf.org>, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/I5b2p-HGnDbd_tG-JosSoIW16WE>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ietf?= =?utf-8?q?-cbor-date-tag-06=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
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: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 21:10:46 -0000

> OTOH while reading draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis-14, the major type 0 is indicated as "integer" and not as "unsigned"

Iiiiinteresting, and something I didn't notice; thanks for picking it up.

Indeed, 7049 says this:
   Major type 0:  an unsigned integer.
   Major type 1:  a negative integer.

While 7049bis says this:
   Major type 0:  an integer in the range 0..2**64-1 inclusive.
   Major type 1:  a negative integer in the range -2**64..-1 inclusive.

So, CBOR folks, give that a number of people have already tripped over
the "unsigned or negative" wording, and that we've been defending it
based on "unsigned" being what it's called in CBOR, is it time for us
to align with 7049bis instead, and change the terms?

Barry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
> Date: Tuesday, 8 September 2020 at 15:54
> To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
> Cc: Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com>om>, "draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag@ietf.org>rg>, "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>rg>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>, "cbor-chairs@ietf.org" <cbor-chairs@ietf.org>rg>, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-06: (with COMMENT)
>
>     It sounds odd indeed but if there is a sensible explanation, we are all set.
>
>     Thank you Barry for the added piece of information
>
>     -éric
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: iesg <iesg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
>     Date: Tuesday, 8 September 2020 at 15:41
>     To: Eric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
>     Cc: Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf@gmail.com>om>, "draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag@ietf.org>rg>, "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>rg>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>, "cbor-chairs@ietf.org" <cbor-chairs@ietf.org>rg>, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
>     Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-06: (with COMMENT)
>
>         "Unsigned" and "negative" are the names two CBOR data types, and
>         that's what the text refers to.  It does sound odd when you consider
>         them as English terms, but they are meant as specific CBOR terms.
>
>         Barry
>
>         On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:53 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
>         <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>         >
>         > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
>         > draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-06: No Objection
>         >
>         > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>         > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>         > introductory paragraph, however.)
>         >
>         >
>         > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>         > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>         >
>         >
>         > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>         > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag/
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>         > COMMENT:
>         > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>         >
>         > Thank you for the work put into this document.
>         >
>         > Thank you Samita Chakrabarti for your IoT directorate review at
>         > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-cbor-date-tag-06-iotdir-telechat-chakrabarti-2020-08-31/
>         >
>         > Please find below some nits.
>         >
>         > I hope that this helps to improve the document,
>         >
>         > Regards,
>         >
>         > -éric
>         >
>         > PS: your example in the security considerations applied to my own birthday in
>         > Japan then in Canada ;-) and this was my only international date line crossing.
>         > Good planing of mine ;-)
>         >
>         > == NITS ==
>         >
>         > -- Section 1 and IANA section --
>         > In the text "The tagged integer is an unsigned or negative value", should it
>         > rather be "The tagged integer is a positive or negative value" ?
>         >
>         >
>         >
>
>
>