Re: [Cbor] Unusual map labels, dCBOR and interop

[Anders Rundgren <[e-mail]>]

Here we go again 😵

On 2024-03-28 2:44, Wolf McNally wrote:
> All,
> 
>> On Mar 24, 2024, at 11:09 PM, Anders Rundgren <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 2024-03-24 21:11, Orie Steele wrote:
>>> Why do we need both CDE and dCBOR?
>>
>> According to (...) the primary motivations for dCBOR are:
>> 1. There's a data source holding numbers and it is not known if the numbers represent integers or floats.  Therefore numbers must be normalized in order to achieve deterministic encoding.
>> 2. Validating the CDE application profile concept.
>>
>> Personally, I find #1 to be a pretty unlikely use-case ("marginal design"), which in turn makes #2 rather contrived.
>>
>> Anders
> 
> Anders has persistently mis-characterized our motivations for creating dCBOR, and for anyone interested in our (lengthy and detailed) responses to him, they are in the list archive.

Indeed.  Different persons have provided pretty verbose rationales for dDCOR where they freely mix things that are unrelated to a basic deterministic encoding scheme such as the range of integers or the support of "elision" in Gordian Envelopes.

My comments were always about "Numeric Reduction" which condensed rationale is stated above.  I have excluded cognitive overload or JavaScript considerations as valid motives for creating an IETF standard.

Regarding consensus see: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/uI9s9VgYcH6DNFLaXb-f7iNDXDE/

Anders


> 
> ~ Wolf