[Cbor] MIME tag 257 vs 36

Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> Tue, 15 September 2020 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <lgl@island-resort.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 43F5E3A0B02 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Dd-3V6LM3Cwu for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plsmtpa12-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa12-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [68.178.252.234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DDA13A0AFA for <cbor@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.20.101.184] ([12.29.104.20]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPA id IHNvkZwl8uoAzIHNwkKusx; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:17:04 -0700
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=CLdUoijD c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=bDV9F4HViGxlAqk2TtlXQA==:117 a=bDV9F4HViGxlAqk2TtlXQA==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=dFQw6R8_zTzLHmp49j8A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
X-SECURESERVER-ACCT: lgl@island-resort.com
From: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Message-Id: <77902B73-54E2-455C-88D3-D9CC62EDD84E@island-resort.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:17:03 -0700
To: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfNoUjczHAWGVeMoVjdJuMUh8qPKV77GLiAu9PYNrRcrrmS2mkwEW56DgaMpVM2ADrOFyMcDqRD7Mn56OI/ay/Iwa1+42N78LXmqR3l0YohVIxdlmFNSe Ollo6Pvql6vUuXjDUUGSgqn+adSdIHbQr5eZoUMDRtB8DkjSiFAQENKh
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/LDmOGmwGgyOy3KL1c8TW2nOucSE>
Subject: [Cbor] MIME tag 257 vs 36
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: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 20:17:06 -0000

Does this seem right?

MIME tag 257 can carry MIME messages that have any content transfer encoding. It is not necessary to use tag 36 for content transfer encoding 7bit, base64 and quoted printable. You cannot however use tag 36 with content transfer encoding binary. You probably can use tag 36 with content transfer encoding 8bit.

It is thus recommend protocols use tag 257 when encoding MIME messages. Use of tag 36 should be avoided. It’s primary use is in protocols that were defined before tag 257 was defined.

I don’t think this is an issue, but I have little bit of worry that tag 36 might give you some end-of-line canonicalization because it is UTF-8 that tag 257 won’t.

LL