Re: [Cbor] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-control-06: (with COMMENT)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 20 October 2021 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.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 004503A073D; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 71YJCvR7qI5O; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5A3C3A059F; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a10c.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.161.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4HZDSc0XVFz30dm; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 17:05:36 +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: <163473874177.29260.10507244942924535953@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 17:05:35 +0200
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-control@ietf.org, cbor-chairs@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org, =?utf-8?Q?Christian_Ams=C3=BCss?= <christian@amsuess.com>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 656435135.681363-118dc525a7081f91d91d157cf6c64ae9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2E5C0875-23F7-48C0-B317-DA25ED383418@tzi.org>
References: <163473874177.29260.10507244942924535953@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/OR0xO_yeEPG-ZvNle_vcLlIz-Cg>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-control-06: (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, 20 Oct 2021 15:05:50 -0000

Hi Roman,

On 2021-10-20, at 16:05, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ** Section 2.2.  Checking my understanding of string concatenation:
> 
> (a) “Target and controller MUST be strings”
> 
> (b) “If the target is a text string, the result of that concatenation MUST be
> valid UTF-8”.
> 
> There is a distinction being made between a “text string” and “byte string” per
> Section 3.1 of RFC8610?

In the context of CDDL we do distinguish between text strings and byte strings (inherited from CBOR, which pretty much started to exist when we couldn’t get that distinction cleanly introduced into msgpack in 2012).

Maybe we can honor POLA (*) by not using “strings” to refer to the type union of either, while keeping the reader unsuspecting.

Now https://github.com/cbor-wg/cddl-control/pull/12

Grüße, Carsten

(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment
(not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege :-)