IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Cbor] Re: Rebooting the naming discussion (Re: EDN file extension (Re: registrations before WGLC Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-23.txt))

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 04 May 2026 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: cbor@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: cbor@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1608E8D1946 for <cbor@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 4 May 2026 09:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1777911799; bh=9E8VzoJMPa8tJRcnT1Ocp+3It1fPl470IhMBqaYV5gQ=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=oIighRB0i3BdvVbF689Y/KOLHygXUdrkzg2/XIakq1DBkR0KXuztZBMQdTjGcdUcQ DUwY3b7YuqBMs+hAoyu+rMJu6BiHlPoRXgwRzT90VOM4ALvJcw1dunqovOvZV3nKqA OQVYayxidyP8S8BbBLjWxI6qScVB8WxyjkpS8nnc=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tzi.org
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dgNYpn5aifts for <cbor@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 4 May 2026 09:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87123E8D1941 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 May 2026 09:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=tzi.org; s=2019; t=1777911797; bh=9E8VzoJMPa8tJRcnT1Ocp+3It1fPl470IhMBqaYV5gQ=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=cmoOIXaWRrCBDeWdx9Ioj26Km7/2nlLnOpUvLtnpeA9ZH6Ko43yP8P6gHjxZA9O9c iZS6Jvy+Er1DUhOtl8fxwEPIdYLKbyzIie+wRYC7FNYHDlSfzdDu6UtsRGZvtIfODN YM8MGOjR2UeDTNZb/jSek8/DqbgW+W4ntklW36G1d0AWJA6X76yYWhDVQYJTdaIIUa QdM57ndpcMLCEGHCBp5P4knsehGvLdqztBAd86rYc+AoChuLylU4zLjEZBsm0sRrTK j04Ul+JsFIL2+frQeJdr7QIY+olNoI0rL+sLBKwmHmeVOpmf6Vja07UXSXT+wLwEnK Ewel0VH7StMog==
Received: from clients-pool2-0109.vpn.uni-bremen.de (clients-pool2-0109.vpn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.212.109]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4g8RlT42FyzDCbR; Mon, 4 May 2026 18:23:17 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKoiRua8TP9Y2M7MX2LrNSYWMJJp41GTKP+MgvMra8QnXOh5tA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2026 18:23:17 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 799604596.804623-05eb7ea0e7855ac464ab8c964e6f2dd0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1B9A1169-5DFC-49C0-8E7E-6EFE4ABF1ED7@tzi.org>
References: <177746864313.330731.1323092014299188811@dt-datatracker-b45949c58-t72jx> <20260429192059.7e7ade5b@nuclight.lan> <DDA81B0B-0E8E-4312-9AEE-897B91477395@tzi.org> <29349.1777845854@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <20E50EDD-7D4A-4789-8764-823565066B34@tzi.org> <CAKoiRua8TP9Y2M7MX2LrNSYWMJJp41GTKP+MgvMra8QnXOh5tA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rohan Mahy <rohan.mahy@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
X-FromAuthMilter: ok
Message-ID-Hash: N4GIB2YYN4LCZ7R2N5SUKW5CE35JIH5L
X-Message-ID-Hash: N4GIB2YYN4LCZ7R2N5SUKW5CE35JIH5L
X-MailFrom: cabo@tzi.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-cbor.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: CBOR <cbor@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Cbor] Re: Rebooting the naming discussion  (Re: EDN file extension (Re: registrations before WGLC Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-23.txt))
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)" <cbor.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/N4os7N_JNSVhP1erimH2_zTxbDE>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:cbor-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cbor-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cbor-leave@ietf.org>

On 2026-05-04, at 17:17, Rohan Mahy <rohan.mahy@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> My initial observation is that anyone using EDN to generate CBOR for their Content Distribution Networks (a very common acronym) is going to be confused if the abbreviation (not the extension) is used in that context.

Do you *really* believe that?
Wouldn’t the normal reaction to be to chuckle for three seconds and then continue on their way?

> Just because the J in JSON has become extraneous, it doesn't mean that we should add CBOR to the name of a diagnostic notation that can represent JSON, CBOR, and YAML. (And no, please don't call it JYCDN).

This is because the data models of the representation formats are related.
CDN users might very well want to know that CBOR itself is a useful data representation format that covers JSON and certain parts of YAML.
I don’t see a negative here, at all.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.45.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status