Re: [Cbor] Interactions of packed CBOR and tags

[Brendan Moran <[e-mail]>]

> On 3 Sep 2020, at 19:13, Jim Schaad <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> [JLS]  I don't find this to be very convoluted at all and it is what
>> my compression algorithm generates automatically.  I look at the piece
>> I split off from the prefix and see if I have "enough" duplicates to
>> compress them down.  I am still trying to decide how to do some
>> extraction from "the middle" of things.  Consider looking at
>> ["www.merch.ietf.org", "www.datatracker.ietf.org"]
>>
>> It would be nice to think about compressing that as
>>
>> 6([ "www.", "merch", "datatracker"], [".ietf.org""],
>> 224(225(simple(2))), 224(226(simple(2)))]
>>
>> Where we have pulled both prefix and postfix strings extracted and maximize the amount of commonality.
>>
>> [/JLS]
>
>
> [JLS] After correcting both of our notations, in this case the it seems that both of the notations are the same size.  From your response, I am not sure if you believe that the notation I gave was not legal under the current draft or not.
[BJM]

It doesn’t look legal to me. The draft says:
> Packed-CBOR = #6.6([rump, [*prefix], *shared])


Normalising it with the -01 draft, I think we get the following (45 bytes):
>> 6([[6(224(simple(2))), 6(225(simple(2)))], ["www.", "merch", "datatracker"], ".ietf.org"])

That’s 2 bytes better than what I suggested.

[/BJM]

>
>> Back to the observations I made above.
>>
>> 1. Compressing the domain names doesn’t work very well. Maybe this is unique to domain names, but I think we need more data on that.
>> 2. There’s a lot of regularity left here, but it’s all in the form of sequences of array elements. For example, the sequence [1, simple(1), 2] shows up regularly, as does [simple(4), 5, 0 , 6].
>>
>> [JLS] This would be taken care of by the fact that we have discussed doing the same prefix processing on arrays as well.  This was brought up specifically for the CRI case where we saw that this was going to be an issue.
>
> I’m glad to hear that. Did I miss something on the mailing list? I assumed that this was still TBD since I didn’t see it there. Does that mean that the use of Tag 6 as the first prefix is being dropped so that array references are explicit? Or are array prefixes prohibited in the first slot? Or something else?
>
> [JLS] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/QYqEfdkQ2iE98M1on5QZA35kgrM/ is the message where Carsten made a proposal which has not gotten into the draft yet.

[BJM]
I’d read that, but I didn’t realise it was any more than an off-hand comment. Do I understand correctly that the following is the intent?

[
  [1,2,3,4],
  [1,2,4,8]
]

Is packed to:

6([
  [
    224([3,4]),
    224([4,8])
  ],
  [
    null,
    [1,2]
  ]
])

(Yes, this is a bad example, since it inflates the original.)

[/BJM]

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.