IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] Chair review of cbor-file-magic 08

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 05 March 2022 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 E23EF3A0ADC; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 11:39:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
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 f8lVfSO5rQdf; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 11:39:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7F073A0ADB; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 11:39:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC91738C96; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 14:48:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 8SyOUpj4CYCO; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 14:48:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F8E138C94; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 14:48:49 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1646509729; bh=KAw1G54g5CK8cuwkZKYgW91yEpdyTxh/92nNcaTSnt4=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=PF54k+jjs/FOoTwI2QYkyf8q2//FKEOl5wkZGz6OSM+dWFFWaAZmUJixo8a4GyV0W +dxcGNld0EwqBAADU1NTgBRbNdUx81xl/3XAFthpJRImEftgjIVQ2j7eSN4AT7Hy23 7q58P9gj53iQZpia70PvQaqgZd1Bo4R+9NPewKwHS36+fM1FZ3U1qPs0K99vlU7NT3 wB6BFJeCceL6bL5ByIyJ5s2NPsKqvGUrqdE7h7pEOtTxV9Vt/Q5MhdU2BnQOnVccrw bU4zQ8+Q47THLI0VqzngkaY+cgY3Mp4FDob+mmHNrl0++YCGzfNPxv2yE1ISvJu3YS U/dFZP/XKZvdg==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 488427CD; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 14:39:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Futf-8=3FQ=3FChristi?= =?us-ascii?Q?an=5FAms=3DC3=3DBCss=3F=3D?= <christian@amsuess.com>, cbor@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <0425DF6E-EB50-4711-89A6-DFD14FE3FD8A@tzi.org>
References: <164442074235.12313.4216473952031101282@ietfa.amsl.com> <YgPhxUmjDUqLTEtK@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <YhTi7sT7O7xzjLQz@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <0425DF6E-EB50-4711-89A6-DFD14FE3FD8A@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<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2022 14:39:37 -0500
Message-ID: <5000.1646509177@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/TSi2fWzwGlT2137b_hPeNGeT-4E>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Chair review of cbor-file-magic 08
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: Sat, 05 Mar 2022 19:39:49 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    >> * with 55900 the ct tags can only be used if the content format is a
    >> CBOR-sequence content format and coding is identity (and then tags
    >> a byte string)

    > The tag content is ‘BOR’.

    >> * with 55901 the ct tags can always be used, and tag a byte string
    >> (which is also encoded according to the coding that is part of the
    >> ct)

    > Again, the tag is on byte string ‘BOR’.

    >> If all these should be allowed, I think this should be spelled out
    >> somewhere -- otherwise the examples appear to be conflicting.

    > Yes.
    > I made a significant editorial round to get this captured.

    > Please see: https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-magic-number/pull/17

Thank you for your changes.
I've merged them, and I'll publish a new draft, even if not perfect, now,
before the deadline.  If we need more, then so be it.

If the Shepherd is not persuaded, then I'll try an in-person editing session
:-)

Okay, -09 is posted.

As I read the diffs, I am concerned that some IESG reviewers may start askinq
questions about "CBOR Protocols", and I wonder if we have explained it well
enough elsewhere.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email