IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8610 (6278)

worley@ariadne.com Sat, 05 September 2020 01:28 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
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 6BE123A100E for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 18:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.984
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.984 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcastmailservice.net
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 z-UEGz5YzXOR for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 18:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3CB53A100C for <cbor@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 18:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-14v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.110]) by resqmta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id EMZJkOVbEzcLsEN0hkg6gf; Sat, 05 Sep 2020 01:28:55 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcastmailservice.net; s=20180828_2048; t=1599269335; bh=Eyf0vI3KCMJMcrYwwyoqMJ8adGHudNVMwPsJ8WhH1kE=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ixXXlI2Of+f1mzedN7ruoAwEZ1iM1ZmZdrnXFl3c1xfdN5GZDh0fszTeTPBuImy62 /QIUrLj2rnhzJNLepFQYUKtlmQBLVs/KBCZmPOOjZhroHp5dRFYDGzQi4L3FAm2R8F wOwnyeYD89cG0VRZBnirDignAbLz7A5PPr40/4dQE1mRIuyLXtOW/kM38pqWQm4R+N QpdqlahFL3VliMEu5bs3/E3pMPh+g1GlS8ZUB/yvq+AZmOTLhAO44Ys+yPUn/9D4au hrmLOjFvnWG1ECJ4U8YuzwSxBfvAajP8lYCDW3fTouagKBbahVb4Hh/WtXSuZgUqle uFRvIXp4O5Jzg==
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([IPv6:2601:192:4a00:430:222:fbff:fe91:d396]) by resomta-ch2-14v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPA id EN0Pkj0GeacJdEN0Qk9a9x; Sat, 05 Sep 2020 01:28:51 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=-100.00;st=legit
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 0851SWN7020783; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 21:28:32 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id 0851SSe6020768; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 21:28:28 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: doug@ewellic.org, eds@reric.net, henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de, christoph.vigano@uni-bremen.de, ietf@augustcellars.com, cbor@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
In-Reply-To: <6E90EC7C-8ED3-4431-9263-06A6D594709E@tzi.org> (cabo@tzi.org)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 21:28:28 -0400
Message-ID: <877dt9c8qr.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/X4jtyinhIEnH6lO3-SP5mKe3Ebw>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 18:31:39 -0700
Subject: Re: [Cbor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8610 (6278)
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: Sat, 05 Sep 2020 01:28:58 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> writes:
> The below is exactly what should never happen: having to encode
> detailed (and somewhat arcane) knowledge about a standard in the
> bowels of another, mostly unrelated standard.

Idealistically, that suggests that the one standard (Unicode) should
define an "exported concept" that is what the other standard (CBOR)
needs to refer to without further complication.  The natural consequent
of that is to ask whether Unicode might already define a term which is
what CBOR needs, but given the people who have read this message thread,
if it existed, it would already have been mentioned.

Dale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email