Re: [Cbor] 7049bis: The concept of "optional tagging" is not really used in practice #126

Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <lgl@island-resort.com>
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 8B2C0120B5E for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 08:28:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 qTiQqO6HH6cJ for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 08:28:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p3plsmtpa11-07.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa11-07.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [68.178.252.108]) (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 B6CFB120B3D for <cbor@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 08:28:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.122.0.118] ([45.56.150.85]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPA id RfCziW5aVOBX8RfD0inrbo; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 09:28:02 -0700
From: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
Message-Id: <3F9E4E02-7A86-4954-8E31-0E28D2B2FCDA@island-resort.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BA7E3C5F-A86D-49E0-8675-BF7AA19652FA"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 08:28:01 -0800
In-Reply-To: <B86EE13B-12C9-4918-8BE9-5E4BEBF3B779@tzi.org>
Cc: cbor@ietf.org, Christophe Lohr <christophe.lohr@imt-atlantique.fr>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
References: <92400DAA-A713-4905-A721-34B138E25192@tzi.org> <ed45e995-1858-3169-1be6-0cce5ce37ce3@imt-atlantique.fr> <87889E65-0152-455A-A6B7-C5F336DC97A4@island-resort.com> <CBC1EF6C-FAF5-4AC9-B0DC-C3FD2ED8B88D@tzi.org> <8B119642-7D8D-4BEF-AD75-0AC9935BCD7C@island-resort.com> <B86EE13B-12C9-4918-8BE9-5E4BEBF3B779@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfLd8vkg0Hnfn6kfwvl7Pu5hAncy1VbSoinPguW9IB5t4YFHsUjcvh9aZ4iqqfKV0TUG7u+pRfeX2cLoBFwMUa8R7vY3oyaKBingFabr2XMZGfkdqcEso glc4+FFvoqtTbanVKc0tGVjKV6PH+6KaduDV7rjgheeaLw6j88K30m0rgUlIyJVjxtaGVlWhjgplumdKmxxwqQbRZ/GCSDBwNQursvXMIJ0mec2KnRa9Tdb+
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/ZSNHKT65FH7Edfsd2PAJLjYc5k4>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] 7049bis: The concept of "optional tagging" is not really used in practice #126
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 16:28:06 -0000

> On Nov 3, 2019, at 1:05 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>; wrote:
> 
> On Nov 3, 2019, at 22:02, Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>; wrote:
>> 
>> Would be cool if there were standard CDDL definitions ready for normative reference for all the “tagged” data types defined in 7049 / 7049bis.
> 
> Do you mean anything beyond Appendix D of RFC 8610?
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8610#appendix-D

Was thinking more like COSE:

decfrac = [
              e10: int,
              m: integer
           ]

decfrac_tagged = #6.4(decfrac)


That way you can say exactly which you want in CDDL without constructing the CDDL for the non-tagged form. Will also help make it clear that  protocol designers need to be clear and pick one.

Maybe even ask that every new registered data type have CDDL like this published suitable for normative reference as a requirement for getting into the IANA registry?

LL