Re: [Cbor] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-cbor-array-tags-06

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 15 August 2019 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 4F19A1200D7 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 09:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 phvS4gLgQ0_q for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 09:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DE741200F5 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 09:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.110] (p548DCCB9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.185]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 468XGx3pspz108n; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 18:39:37 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <6103220.oG8Krn4eWb@tjmaciei-mobl1>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 18:39:37 +0200
Cc: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 587579975.4506921-795ac752106d0bfa1acfd0ec968a7975
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3927C0BF-0CD5-4E07-B688-0193690ADAD1@tzi.org>
References: <156587646384.15832.10776769526244223381.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2845175.7IlyYNWCq8@tjmaciei-mobl1> <3A28AD58-E2CB-46EC-921C-F35A5F0BBF2D@tzi.org> <6103220.oG8Krn4eWb@tjmaciei-mobl1>
To: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@intel.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/YyBxf5596f6LNC3im5JV3n8uC_E>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-cbor-array-tags-06
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: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 16:39:45 -0000

On Aug 15, 2019, at 18:03, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@intel.com>; wrote:
> 
> Can you at least reserve the full 32 tag range that would be allocated if the 
> sign bit were used, then? That is, from tags 64 to 95, instead of just 64 to 
> 87.

The CBOR tags registry does not have any mechanics defined for reserving ranges.
Of course, we could reserve 88 to 95 like we reserved 76.  Then we’d need to make RFCs to unreserve those numbers when we need them.

(88 and 92 would be the obvious candidates for be/le bfloat16 for me, if the objective is to keep implementations of the entire gamut simple.)

Grüße, Carsten