IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] [Anima] Creating CBOR-based media types and content formats

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 21 July 2021 22:14 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 5D65C3A2C6B; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 15:14:37 -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 W6naqcZxdG1R; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 15:14:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2642B3A2C1C; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 15:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60BE9389F9; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 18:17:54 -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 3u9iGLUaXZd8; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 18:17:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F4E838A01; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 18:17:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 612CE54A; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 18:14:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
cc: cbor@ietf.org, dispatch@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <E4FBFD33-F1F8-4998-8EAF-88EAB41AB0A8@tzi.org>
References: <E4FBFD33-F1F8-4998-8EAF-88EAB41AB0A8@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: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 18:14:25 -0400
Message-ID: <9867.1626905665@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/VMDJvLX5_oKV2ZmAemYIBETSy3Q>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] [Anima] Creating CBOR-based media types and content formats
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: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 22:14:38 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    > We had interesting discussions yesterday about how to fix the
    > media-type and content-format registrations for CBOR-based anima
    > vouchers.

Thank you for your input, and for trying to remove yourself from the loop.

    > I’m growing a bit tired of dispensing the ancient wizardry that is
    > required each time such a registration is needed, so I started writing
    > it up:

    > https://cabo.github.io/cbor-media-types/draft-bormann-cbor-defining-media-types.html

    > Comments and PRs very welcome.

I did find reading it invoked a new appreciation for Arcane Wizardry.

Specifically, I found that sections 3 and 4 didn't tell me anything that I
recognized as important for filing in the template.

  "The Encoding considerations are often used in a way that is different from
  the intention in Section 4.8 of [RFC6838], which is a simple selection
  between "binary" and various alternatives that are now all obsolete. "

so, really, it's always binary now?
Maybe, just say that somewhere.

I don't think you should hide the example in the appendix.

Rather, I think that you should make it the core of the document, explaining
each bit of arcana.  If it's worth publishing this as a new RFC, then it's
worth obsoleting RFC6838.  Otherwise, I suggest some nice HTML, maybe in the
new-fangled single-hop-over-building wiki.
("Go big, or go home")

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email