IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 23 October 2019 13:04 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 830E41208CD for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 06:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 USDZEg5rTtVx for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 06:04:09 -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 78302120840 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 06:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.110] (p5089AE1C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.28]) (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 46yrDR5XlXz106S; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 15:04:07 +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: <92400DAA-A713-4905-A721-34B138E25192@tzi.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 15:04:07 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 593528645.094009-fe481352d864b05d38a9571a31a4682e
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AA653F06-8D52-4D39-A077-1CA1AF25DD26@tzi.org>
References: <92400DAA-A713-4905-A721-34B138E25192@tzi.org>
To: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/_XXSYpeGdPWPgBiaFZ-bWTDbymI>
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: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 13:04:12 -0000

… and I dropped a PR addressing this and other remaining tag issues (#107).

https://github.com/cbor-wg/CBORbis/pull/127

I hope there is still some time for reading this before 1500Z…

Grüße, Carsten


> On Oct 23, 2019, at 13:38, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
> Section 3.4 talks about "optional tagging" as a secondary purpose of tags. But in today's CBOR protocols, tags are rarely "optional" in the sense that they can simply be left out without a change in semantics, as 3.4 para 3 implies.
> 
> This concept comes up again in 4.2.2, where "optional tagging" is outlawed in deterministic encoding (but then the text goes on to explain that protocols might choose to retain tags, but doesn't say why).
> 
> Proposal: Get rid of any discussion of “optional tagging". 
> (Of course, understanding/processing tags remains an optional feature of a decoder.)
> 
> https://github.com/cbor-wg/CBORbis/issues/126
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email