Re: [Cbor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8610 (6575)

Francesca, will you please close this report as "held for document
update", as suggested below?

Thanks,
Barry

On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 9:28 AM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>
> Well, representation types for tags are explained in 3.6, so 2.2.3 should have a forward reference to 3.6 instead of trying to restate 3.6 (which it only manages by half).
> (Note that the text doesn’t say what #6.24 without parentheses means — the ABNF suggests that the number after the dot should be ai not argument.
> In hindsight, maybe using a different character than “.” for tag/argument would have been more suggestive.)
>
> I’d say, this is "hold for document update” so we get a chance to cover the corner case, but it is worth saying now that 3.6 is the detailed description of the exception for #6.nn(tt).
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>
> > On 7. May 2021, at 01:52, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> >
> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8610,
> > "Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and JSON Data Structures".
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6575
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Technical
> > Reported by: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
> >
> > Section: 2.2.3
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> > Where a major type of 6 (Tag) is used, the type
> >   of the tagged item can be specified by appending it in parentheses.
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > Where a major type of 6 (Tag) is used, the type of the tagged item can be specified by appending it in parentheses. Additionally,
> > for major type 6 the value of the argument, not the additional info is what follows the dot.
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > The text at the top of page 50 is correct. The examples in 2.2.3 are also correct.
> >
> > Instructions:
> > -------------
> > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC8610 (draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-08)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title               : Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and JSON Data Structures
> > Publication Date    : June 2019
> > Author(s)           : H. Birkholz, C. Vigano, C. Bormann
> > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > Source              : Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions
> > Area                : Applications and Real-Time
> > Stream              : IETF
> > Verifying Party     : IESG
>
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor