IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] Remove .cbordet? (was Re: đź”” WGLC on draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control)

Christian AmsĂĽss <christian@amsuess.com> Sat, 23 March 2024 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <christian@amsuess.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 17802C14CEFC; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 16:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GUC7B7yj1RGo; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 16:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.akis.at (smtp.akis.at [IPv6:2a02:b18:500:a515::f455]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9CD6C14F73E; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 16:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com ([IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010:a800:ff:fede:b1bd]) by smtp.akis.at (8.17.2/8.17.2) with ESMTPS id 42NNNsPX006197 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:23:54 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from christian@amsuess.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: smtp.akis.at: Host [IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010:a800:ff:fede:b1bd] claimed to be poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com
Received: from poseidon-mailbox.amsuess.com (hermes.lan [10.13.13.254]) by poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51872362B7; Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:23:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hephaistos.amsuess.com (unknown [IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010:881b:1d4f:354e:51f]) by poseidon-mailbox.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 65E88328BC; Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:23:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: (nullmailer pid 15597 invoked by uid 1000); Sat, 23 Mar 2024 23:23:51 -0000
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:23:51 +0100
From: Christian AmsĂĽss <christian@amsuess.com>
To: "lgl island-resort.com" <lgl@island-resort.com>
Cc: "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <Zf9kh419AupOTX4A@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
References: <ZeMG7tpfKLyf3aSz@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <9558918F-009A-49B2-82C1-D761B2D7D831@island-resort.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uzkb7bgznltD+bCY"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9558918F-009A-49B2-82C1-D761B2D7D831@island-resort.com>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.86
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/KkdSB7FN43SGbLnsi600I6lCxTg>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Remove .cbordet? (was Re: đź”” WGLC on draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control)
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 23:24:03 -0000

Hello Carsten, Laurence,

(writing here not as a chair)

On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 08:23:36PM +0000, lgl island-resort.com wrote:
> I’d like to suggest that we not define “.cbordet” in this document,
> that section 4 be removed.  We want to move past the definition of CDE
> in RFC 8949 to the new one in the new document. Let the one-and-only
> control operator for determinism be “.cde” in draft-ietf-cbor-cde.

I agree that having an operator for deterministically encoded CBOR while
CDE is being specified will rather contribute to confusion. I'd expect
that like EDN has become the one known diagnostic notation, CDE will
become the one "deterministic" encoding understood if someone doesn't
specify their own rules.

While I would not object to publishing more-control with .cbordet in it,
I have a weak preference for publishing it without.

BR
Christian

-- 
To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers.
  -- Bene Gesserit axiom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email