IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] MORE control operators (Re: [core] CDDL Model for YANG-SID (draft-ietf-core-sid))

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sat, 25 February 2023 23:37 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 03D7BC14CE52 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Feb 2023 15:37:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tz2oFaFW9gKh for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Feb 2023 15:37:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.15]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21FF6C14EB1A for <cbor@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Feb 2023 15:37:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.124] (p548dc9a4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.201.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4PPNTK1z0xzDCbZ; Sun, 26 Feb 2023 00:37:09 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <18617.1677367610@localhost>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2023 00:37:08 +0100
Cc: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 699061028.833683-c49dfa625a3f25236d9ee511edf244b5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AC00E238-9B6C-449E-80F8-6D3D3E0CA22D@tzi.org>
References: <FF048123-7AC9-4F6D-8F72-1DD17E40BAF8@tzi.org> <C0C97958-0185-4849-AF65-78CD0946C69E@tzi.org> <18617.1677367610@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/asrvXleVPvfy69wJ5FbKQIGFBOU>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] MORE control operators (Re: [core] CDDL Model for YANG-SID (draft-ietf-core-sid))
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Sat, 25 Feb 2023 23:37:16 -0000

On 2023-02-26, at 00:26, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> do we also need Base45 was it... RFC 9285  ??

Probably.

(RFC 9285 base45 is technically inferior to solving this problem correctly [1], which I originally pointed out in 2021-03-13, but unfortunately it already sneaked into widely deployed digital health stuff that everybody uses.  I still think that somebody should redo this for new applications in the right way...)

Grüße, Carsten

[1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/llxE4zsEr-omfTlmnF2XuMgtBOM/
This is just a last-call thread where the obvious point was made again…
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/gnX1E6qp0NttNjbuhephcG6BnSQ/

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status