From nobody Tue Aug 18 12:04:08 2020 Return-Path: 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 4918F3A0A34 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:04:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 8i0UE1ka7bxF for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:04:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B63333A0917 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:04:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C23A389BE for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:43:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id oTG_6u5z_45S for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:43:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5161A389B7 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:43:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C2447B for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 15:03:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: cbor@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <1FC978C4-5EB5-42D9-B522-28D72FDCA5B9@tzi.org> References: <5F695632-CF27-40FF-BC23-E731AAA95771@island-resort.com> <895A3DF8-DF11-479F-9DC6-9EF98465A7E0@tzi.org> <1FC978C4-5EB5-42D9-B522-28D72FDCA5B9@tzi.org> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Cbor] Tagging requirement X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 19:04:07 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Carsten, some year ago we had a lot of discussion when doing 7049bis about what would be described in 7049bis, and what belonged in the Protocol using document. I think that many of Laurence's questions fall into this. I wonder if we need either: 1) a guide to writing CBOR applicability statements. 2) a worked out example. Probably both. While a lot of the more normative advice all through 7049bis, it might be too diffuse to apply quickly. I think CDDL can be used to clarify things, but it might be that some of us need the specific ways beat over our heads. -- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAl88Jh4ACgkQgItw+93Q 3WWLGgf9El98G3f03FIt9m4oIuR66HZ29Oh8jTE9jzcWp6W/txymblPfECM3JcFz 4FVXp9IiULE1rYdlank8PV7ZDKxh6wTrLWViCSR5w4yQGZDRY3gBmTKEjWv36M0x unrrsFV9hMs4aFpvkJu9AWN9mgohBqbT6LNgU0sVBU2yG1AeZalZylVUqMkxYIWs frQbqGXFtIqq7A6cnC420tLkK60kHtVXez5TQMpeMI8VfGDRjiJTzEcUelDRSZDI oL0IUWgk64WbMfD7xolu1pJYg9FX4VUUNqCt3+xRndeQNhV/9yuszoLe2QkfixGP akeIuxd09hFwSQ14rM20UbdjsR8Pew== =0NTb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--