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> Tue, 05 May 2026 00:12 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 63397E90C089 for <cbor@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 4 May 2026 17:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1777939966; bh=NiJLBtF1W6nOv/aOL2n+s6NWrJBUTqiBem4ns+ZTt9Q=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Fu6hgvOSkJtK+QPSrYgbS0uho2hOULEzO6tw+CpnT7l8uW/U9srmvu5ek06esNzQ/ gZWDzWK+wVjyeGqij8lG955aM7KgiTnhAFox2hyFNuS6uc1RAADSw7mgx5wxr31/hZ uokTrAU80SVVOhSaPEiuFM6fYmesj1YO6J8bGwNg=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.398 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, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 AwBmqkouWS-9 for <cbor@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 4 May 2026 17:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.21]) (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 1AD66E90BF97 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 May 2026 17:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=tzi.org; s=2019; t=1777939919; bh=NiJLBtF1W6nOv/aOL2n+s6NWrJBUTqiBem4ns+ZTt9Q=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=neCnUCRSYXfoBRwkBzgpjB+AY3eXhYZxk6HagCemGfNgc20GkibUDkyWvrwVa5NNb zRiMt9bPOsJTm3wOObksPc3pjUaH9h2rrVTTzGzw6is/ZddbJzs8BfPVLdE+eU2h0Y 5CtDI7m1jmsFnaqoA0qhFkRpbFsgR384Ko23HhX6e2yb/7MOK0Pnlq+hhObU6C81yZ i9efSDPsfK9d8U+FOXZGp+BMaML0yaJ+ZdY623M3QjdKeJzbRJmSRN3ice7aa8VHFk 8njh1qK0M6pQV/vQabSUcCH+iOHq0bFDqb27ucM5kLM+OoYi8ofb7I99YB2Q8yFCZ9 wBRFS/8IW7RPQ==
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p548dcfc9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.207.201]) (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 4g8f8G5PjJzDCbR; Tue, 5 May 2026 02:11:58 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.500.181\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <20260505030634.1bee8d04@nuclight.lan>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2026 02:11:46 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E0942F6F-AE14-4168-B7D7-AD8399913AE1@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> <60095344-8AAD-47A7-8162-2FC2D4D4FAFB@island-resort.com> <20260505003534.6cd7ee74@nuclight.lan> <7F381B21-70D2-4F96-AC9E-4A635DB8B6DF@tzi.org> <20260505030634.1bee8d04@nuclight.lan>
To: Vadim Goncharov <vadimnuclight@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.500.181)
X-FromAuthMilter: ok
Message-ID-Hash: EBRMTVRXPT3XHKKLYIKDHWU6XAIY7IYM
X-Message-ID-Hash: EBRMTVRXPT3XHKKLYIKDHWU6XAIY7IYM
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: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, 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/RsGVQycqkgyUvq9An-IjWmeFX9U>
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 May 5, 2026, at 02:06, Vadim Goncharov <vadimnuclight@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> So this just means that we will not use .cdn for it. Given that draft, and
> thus eventually RFC, is titled "CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation", this four
> words result in .cedn - very simple resolution, I think.

We could do that.
Of course, the question would immediately be “what is CBOR (non-extended) diagnostic notation then”?

Let’s get rid of “extended”; there is no need for that.
We don’t usually slap “extended” on a protocol each time we extend it.
You can go all the way from RFC 793 to RFC 9293, it’s still not called “extended TCP”.

Grüße, Carsten


(The draft is called that way because we adopted it when it still was a small addition to RFC 8610’s EDN.
It no longer is that, it is the modern version of CBOR diagnostic notation.)

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status