Re: [Cbor] draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-control-00 should add CDDL notation for CBOR Sequences

Hi John,

as the control for cborseq is introduced in:

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8610#section-3.8.4

and RFC8742 states that:

>    Currently, CDDL does not provide for unadorned CBOR Sequences as a
>    top-level subject of a specification.  For now, the suggestion is to
>    use an array for the top-level rule, as is used for the ".cborseq"
>    control operator, and add English text that explains that the
>    specification is really about a CBOR Sequence with the elements of
>    the array

it seems to me that you are asking for a specific CDDL notation that can 
represent a cborseq as a top-level subject. Why is using an array here 
not good enough in your case?

Viele Grüße,

Henk

On 05.11.20 13:49, John Mattsson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I the most important missing piece in RFC 8610 is the lack of CDDL for CBOR Sequences (RFC 8742) and I think draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-control would be a good place to add CDDL for that.
> 
> CBOR sequences has already been standardized in RFC 8742. CBOR sequences are used quite heavily in IETF documents such as RFC 8769, draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security, draft-ietf-lake-edhoc, draft-palombini-core-oscore-edhoc, draft-mattsson-cose-cbor-cert-compress, etc.
> 
> I don't understand all the complexities of CDDL formalism, but this seems like a quite easy thing to solve. I do not care exactly which notation is used, but could we please just agree on something and put in a draft.
> 
> The notation could be something like:
> 
> - reuse the CDDL notation for group ( ... )
> - reuse the Diagnostic Notation for CBOR sequences << ... >>
> - Some modification of the CDDL array notation ] ... [
> - Something looking like symbol swearing #$%@#$% ... #$%@#$%
> ...
> 
> Cheers,
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
> 