IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] [Ext] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis-14: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Wed, 30 September 2020 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
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 6BA3C3A09BB; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 06:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 rjzP9m3OphyC; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 06:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taper.sei.cmu.edu (taper.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.16]) (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 A3B9B3A09B7; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 06:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from delp.sei.cmu.edu (delp.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.31]) by taper.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 08UDnJgi006785; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 09:49:19 -0400
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 taper.sei.cmu.edu 08UDnJgi006785
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1601473759; bh=8l+GnMjuOm+DyREnNoI0QA0YEWQ98oC4rBiCoKv/NZQ=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=fSAXRs9uKPpzSElgCId+o+ltXQyMbzoBTcVZPVP8szS7IXp7MUI+JsmLfDCoo7rZ1 LCwD4ITTho//OZPHItGNmTVgb/xW7Vjc+9NSsyNeR42JqQFLaB2xmPB6eNtyaNqK2A MgjscwloTVxjO2pAgzT8n0Aq3jzSZXUSP+SPQr5g=
Received: from MURIEL.ad.sei.cmu.edu (muriel.ad.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.47]) by delp.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 08UDnCr2037817; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 09:49:12 -0400
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.46) by MURIEL.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 09:49:12 -0400
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb]) by MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb%13]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.003; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 09:49:12 -0400
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
CC: "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Cbor] [Ext] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis-14: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHWhirQRbaTVBrs5kCr5YWFkbXLeqmBkUcA///CE4A=
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:49:11 +0000
Message-ID: <6aeb13afa552418189228506d0cc8c8a@cert.org>
References: <159960212460.14731.6166470610948655056@ietfa.amsl.com> <D59FE3AD-1CBC-4020-857F-7217CAE427DD@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <D59FE3AD-1CBC-4020-857F-7217CAE427DD@tzi.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.202.177]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/NzEznMTP0Qkqpx7DtZ_ByI2bg_c>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] [Ext] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis-14: (with COMMENT)
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: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:49:23 -0000

Hi Carsten!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <iesg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 9:26 AM
> To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
> Cc: cbor@ietf.org; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Cbor] [Ext] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-
> 7049bis-14: (with COMMENT)
> 
> >> ** Section 1.0. Is it possible to enumerate the fixed errata?
> >
> > It is possible, but does not seem important. They were issues in some
> examples.
> 
> Rereading this comment, it now appears to me that it is asking for what is
> Appendix G.1:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis-15.html#name-errata-
> processing-clerical-
> 
> (I don’t think there is a need to reference that from Section 1 — anyone
> searching for “errata” will find Appendix G.1.)

When I wrote that comment I hadn't read Appendix G (70-something pages later) yet.  When deduplicating my comments for my final ballot text, I didn't notice the discrepancy.  The intent of my feedback was to signal the utility of having the addressed errata enumerated somewhere.  Appendix G works for me as much as Section 1.  I concur with you.  Nothing needs to be done.

Regards,
Roman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email