IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Cbor] Re: Rebooting the naming discussion (Re: EDN file extension (Re: registrations before WGLC Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-23.txt))

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 04 May 2026 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: cbor@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: cbor@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F601E8FD72C for <cbor@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 4 May 2026 14:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1777931633; bh=Fcx2oOkBzblh5sYsgOyjWChlZVblMJnaCJTKisk8JnQ=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=yGaJctUMmP3ivmufKgrNPuSmNCZz5jUcxZvX2qpL60QgG7vkvBHqegqkVH2K2x3S0 Lb2x7n4VcC3aGEfx1NQifAeAlH/z1WlGi+23CWIkR87j2Duy1fqH9GtOYy0PWN5tEK wrBYg7fOvDpt3DFpikNfzha/fL/qivF1O9bI8HY8=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.389 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tzi.org
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qfb8qH15yHqr for <cbor@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 4 May 2026 14:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB17BE8FD71B for <cbor@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 May 2026 14:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=tzi.org; s=2019; t=1777931627; bh=Fcx2oOkBzblh5sYsgOyjWChlZVblMJnaCJTKisk8JnQ=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=hnggWzMtjbjhx0v89SNWJ6noAtAjEJ4D7GIUGn2/kXghS3z2c0tIW6dR4W1LJXsdp BIb+BwdC/WVmpDCHs1K+5seKe2sIYYIqsZUpkmsitdgfT7CG38Zga50Ith9uDO8hXh lyMVyMserJUiVJc/1BmH5zwhDsRj6Hlrh6garBpzyVnsBOVd5mJQIVJLBwm2VCjk1m vl5Dky7W7sj10IUqsOJMrMujRXqV8LHQUlQBkuvL1R3qNr7YycDjbPlVQYtN/fxMo4 w8wjC9H1Bq9WXSrB+bN6p9y+mMmymUke8Yatbq1pZ3hT8UTviMLjVB2nwrhUoAbAM0 CaLMzyCpJNX5w==
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p548dcfc9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.207.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4g8b4p5MCJzDCbL; Mon, 4 May 2026 23:53:46 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.500.181\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <20260505003534.6cd7ee74@nuclight.lan>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2026 23:53:35 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7F381B21-70D2-4F96-AC9E-4A635DB8B6DF@tzi.org>
References: <177746864313.330731.1323092014299188811@dt-datatracker-b45949c58-t72jx> <20260429192059.7e7ade5b@nuclight.lan> <DDA81B0B-0E8E-4312-9AEE-897B91477395@tzi.org> <29349.1777845854@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <20E50EDD-7D4A-4789-8764-823565066B34@tzi.org> <60095344-8AAD-47A7-8162-2FC2D4D4FAFB@island-resort.com> <20260505003534.6cd7ee74@nuclight.lan>
To: Vadim Goncharov <vadimnuclight@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.500.181)
X-FromAuthMilter: ok
Message-ID-Hash: C2PLDP7MCM5OL3TV5MN4C4YWKNKG55MN
X-Message-ID-Hash: C2PLDP7MCM5OL3TV5MN4C4YWKNKG55MN
X-MailFrom: cabo@tzi.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-cbor.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, CBOR <cbor@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Cbor] Re: Rebooting the naming discussion (Re: EDN file extension (Re: registrations before WGLC Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-23.txt))
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)" <cbor.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/VUvyI4hY_SezuHYQWeCUbzqYi0w>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:cbor-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cbor-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cbor-leave@ietf.org>

On May 4, 2026, at 23:35, Vadim Goncharov <vadimnuclight@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Suddenly I've realized that CDN/diag are for 7049 version and now we have EDN
> (btw, with incompatible changes).

Nobody(*) uses the pure RFC 8949 version (yes, we essentially copied Section 8 of RFC 8949 from Section 6 of RFC 7049, updating the reference to JSON and explaining “”_/‘'_) any more.

But it is really good to keep the lineage together.
They are all called CBOR diagnostic notation over time, which is one reason may may not want to innnovate on the name — we want to stop using old old pure 8949 Section 8 diagnostic notation or old pure 8949/8610 Appendix G diagnostic notation.
There is no “choice” between old old, old, or modern.
Modern CDN is just the same thing, updated for the 2020s and the following decades.

Grüße, Carsten

(*) Of course, we can’t possibly know that as a fact, but we clearly are on a trajectory where that is the case and we want to help along on that trajectory.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status