From nobody Tue Aug 18 12:11:36 2020 Return-Path: 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 45EF83A0A41 for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:11:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 O6_jcWrV2iKm for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:11:32 -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 BBEA93A0A3F for ; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 12:11:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.42.100] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (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 4BWL9t4Rzjz102J; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 21:11:30 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <23965.1597777439@localhost> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 21:11:30 +0200 Cc: cbor@ietf.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 619470690.09121-2c32f0a5b76213930261494f3adbf850 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <209669F1-8F6D-4D80-B7B0-38116BE7A66E@tzi.org> References: <5F695632-CF27-40FF-BC23-E731AAA95771@island-resort.com> <895A3DF8-DF11-479F-9DC6-9EF98465A7E0@tzi.org> <1FC978C4-5EB5-42D9-B522-28D72FDCA5B9@tzi.org> <23965.1597777439@localhost> To: Michael Richardson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Cbor] Tagging requirement X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 19:11:35 -0000 Hi Michael, On 2020-08-18, at 21:03, Michael Richardson = wrote: >=20 > Carsten, some year ago we had a lot of discussion when doing 7049bis = about > what would be described in 7049bis, and what belonged in the Protocol = using > document. >=20 > I think that many of Laurence's questions fall into this. > I wonder if we need either: >=20 > 1) a guide to writing CBOR applicability statements. I=E2=80=99m not sure I=E2=80=99m parsing this correctly =E2=80=94 = writing CBOR applicability statements? What do we need an applicability statement for and why would we be = writing many of them? > 2) a worked out example. I think we have about 30 :-) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7049/referencedby/ (This is slightly confused =E2=80=94 it thinks that RFC 8392 has an = informative reference to 7049, and I=E2=80=99m sure the heuristics = failed in other places.) > Probably both. > While a lot of the more normative advice all through 7049bis, it might = be too > diffuse to apply quickly. >=20 > I think CDDL can be used to clarify things, but it might be that some = of > us need the specific ways beat over our heads. I think some of the material about tags could go into notable-tags. But maybe we do need a tutorial document. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten