Re: [Cbor] Remove .cbordet? (was Re: 🔔 WGLC on draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control)

(with no AD hat) I prefer small narrowly focused documents, they are easier
to review, and to implement.

As a developer, I've experienced difficulty with cannonicalizing using JCS
and JSON-LD...

I fear that kind of complexity being mixed into CBOR.

I believe an abundance of caution with deterministic encoding is warranted.

I think Lawrence's proposal is good.

(With AD hat on) Working group consensus is for the chairs to establish,
but consider that IETF consensus, and better reviews may be easier to
achieve on simpler documents.

OS

On Sat, Mar 23, 2024, 6:37 PM Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I strongly agree with Laurence.  We should publish More Controls without
> .cbordet and instead only
> publish CDE with the .cde control operator.
>
> Cheers,
> - Ira
>
> *Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)*
>
> *Chair - SAE Trust Anchors and Authentication TF*
> *Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG*
>
> *Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WGSecretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer
> Working GroupCo-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WGIETF
> Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIBBlue Roof Music / High North
> Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
> <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
> <http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto: blueroofmusic@gmail.com
> <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>(permanent) PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
> 906-494-2434*
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 7:24 PM Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Carsten, Laurence,
>>
>> (writing here not as a chair)
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 08:23:36PM +0000, lgl island-resort.com wrote:
>> > I’d like to suggest that we not define “.cbordet” in this document,
>> > that section 4 be removed.  We want to move past the definition of CDE
>> > in RFC 8949 to the new one in the new document. Let the one-and-only
>> > control operator for determinism be “.cde” in draft-ietf-cbor-cde.
>>
>> I agree that having an operator for deterministically encoded CBOR while
>> CDE is being specified will rather contribute to confusion. I'd expect
>> that like EDN has become the one known diagnostic notation, CDE will
>> become the one "deterministic" encoding understood if someone doesn't
>> specify their own rules.
>>
>> While I would not object to publishing more-control with .cbordet in it,
>> I have a weak preference for publishing it without.
>>
>> BR
>> Christian
>>
>> --
>> To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater
>> powers.
>>   -- Bene Gesserit axiom
>> _______________________________________________
>> CBOR mailing list
>> CBOR@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
>