Re: [Cbor] Why 0x42_4F_52 (was Re: 🔔 WG adoption call on draft-richardson-cbor-file-magic)

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Thu, 18 February 2021 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@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 586B83A186D for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:00:36 -0800 (PST)
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 3r5XPWrjdtCp for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:00:33 -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 C9F1B3A18C9 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:00:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD913389BE; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:04:10 -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 rtV24exL-36C; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:04:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D48FE389B8; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:04:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB8812F; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:00:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>, cbor@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <5A6AB2CA-5C4E-476E-A0A1-6B6CCBDA4663@island-resort.com>
References: <YCwajOdK//yoqe20@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <5E5A8BB1-CED3-495F-9B71-2EBB34923F5B@island-resort.com> <10561.1613668493@localhost> <5A6AB2CA-5C4E-476E-A0A1-6B6CCBDA4663@island-resort.com>
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: text/plain
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:00:20 -0500
Message-ID: <8951.1613678420@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/UT1G8rVcdnJ0uFmzM1emLRrbeMo>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] =?utf-8?b?V2h5IDB4NDJfNEZfNTIgKHdhcyBSZTog8J+UlCBXRyBh?= =?utf-8?q?doption_call_on_draft-richardson-cbor-file-magic=29?=
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: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 20:00:42 -0000

Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> wrote:
    > protocol characteristics, so maybe there is no relation at all. Maybe
    > we define a new tag that indicates the file is an EAT and that is never
    > sent over the wire?

That's why the CBOR Sequence: if you want the mark in the file, but not on
the wire.

I think that 0xd9d9f6 or 0xd9d9f8 could be used for CBOR Sequence, and it
would also not be valid UTF-8.  While "0xd9" is a valid first byte of a three
byte sequence, 0xd9 is not a valid second byte.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [