Re: [Cbor] Tag 35

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 16 September 2020 15:05 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 44EFB3A0902 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 08:05:20 -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 Y5CecuX8pLM0 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 08:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DD253A08EC for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 08:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1D5389B9; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 10:43:56 -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 16pinP_letWp; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 10:43:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:103c:9eff:fecb:2eac]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3124389B8; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 10:43:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B92BB4F5; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 11:05:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
cc: cbor@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <7A6E9194-29B1-401A-A67E-80353BDBC497@tzi.org>
References: <7A6E9194-29B1-401A-A67E-80353BDBC497@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, 16 Sep 2020 11:05:08 -0400
Message-ID: <14729.1600268708@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/XRLZEufg5OoMAogD50tMlKVjkhI>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Tag 35
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, 16 Sep 2020 15:05:20 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    > 2. Keep Tag 35 in RFC 7049bis, and make the PCRE reference (which is
    > really to a web page that is changing occasionally) normative.  We
    > would still not actually say which of the formats (PCRE, PCRE2, ES20xx,
    > and in which version) is actually in the tag content, and would
    > probably need to strengthen the language saying that.

?copy the web page, or point at the dated archive.org copy of the page?

    > 2a.  Do the same and make clear that one only gets interoperability by
    > keeping to the common subset of all these Perl-5-derived formats.

Seems like the best solution.

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