IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] AD review of draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic-10

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 04 April 2022 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 006123A0A84; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 07:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
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 cwEstu5IXWb3; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 07:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86FD33A0AAE; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 07:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A30F38BDE; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 10:14:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 4jVl4SM4zsQ8; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 10:14:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BAE238BDC; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 10:14:39 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1649081679; bh=MWW5bA9OR8Vdh9nuCvuQy+7fvUJT+Of6qNTkzPpZ5UA=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=AgfZEOt4K4GuXQPpZyqwKyd5QMF/nSAGqFHH3Pgs4PTAEo5u0PGopQNWzwRi4mLXZ yRwHOQQWPYYIbT0G9bJAehMXQL8IVDuD4FjeATJj6nvACA3QwodqQGHwOxRL5wnbjJ 8l7h4VOmbmU3u0yQqr8q4/ttb7XP9WWobrIGTRkZG4iPGaE+xqMk3xxvM0AxHO9Zpq zDjmi3tA57pWSUF3M9Qa1josylYZDFbEVePdyPs85O9xxZduYwhc26QB1tClyAB1EC QM3Tt2CcAYQ4E+11+sZcHISzUT2DQTDzcjV4C8UgZ3FkJN4P1Max2h41Brpqbk6zGO YlFmrYzohBgJA==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC7E4BA; Mon, 4 Apr 2022 10:03:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
cc: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic@ietf.org>, "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <EE1E42F7-3669-4547-B4BF-57AB738A5ABE@tzi.org>
References: <HE1PR07MB4217656476550D97A1ACEA6A98E09@HE1PR07MB4217.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <47C46EEB-3736-403A-AA39-6989A3BD755A@tzi.org> <17787.1649014907@localhost> <EE1E42F7-3669-4547-B4BF-57AB738A5ABE@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2022 10:03:34 -0400
Message-ID: <30746.1649081014@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/bF0jIBnqeMJAHm-NBwKCRx3rVj8>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] AD review of draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic-10
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 Apr 2022 14:03:56 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    >> 17. -----
    >>
    >> […]
    >>
    >> Also it is a bit confusing to use "NNNNNNNN" and not just "N" (as I
    >> read it as a decimal, and 8xN doesn't really give me any more
    >> information about the number).

    > I think NNNNNNNN is a reasonable representation of a larger number, but
    > I’m also not opposed to changing this to N (twice).

I replied in the email that I didn't think we needed to change here.

    > Also, we might want to work a bit on:

    >> 18. -----
    >>
    >> Appendix A
    >>
    >> FP: I have some vague memory of this being discussed during interims -
    >> so please remind me if I have forgotten, but why is this an appendix
    >> rather than in the document itself?

    > We might provide a little more text about moving this into an appendix.

I will look again, I thought we already did that.

    >> 19. -----
    >>
    >> Appendix C
    >>
    >> FP: I think a bit more text around the motivation and need for such a tag would be useful.

    > Yes, that also could use a bit more work.

    > Despite 18 and 19 not yet being addressed, I would prefer to submit a
    > -11 with what we have now so people actually review that and not -10.

published.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email