IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] 🔔 Confirmation call for Working Group Adoption for draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl

Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de> Sun, 09 July 2017 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
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 715071200FC for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jul 2017 15:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 9riy5p9ia0TI for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jul 2017 15:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailext.sit.fraunhofer.de (mailext.sit.fraunhofer.de [141.12.72.89]) (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 169B61200ED for <cbor@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Jul 2017 15:45:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sit.fraunhofer.de (mail.sit.fraunhofer.de [141.12.84.171]) by mailext.sit.fraunhofer.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v69MjZFO006290 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <cbor@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:45:36 +0200
Received: from [192.168.16.50] (134.102.43.163) by mail.sit.fraunhofer.de (141.12.84.171) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:45:29 +0200
To: cbor@ietf.org
References: <HE1PR0701MB25390DA8E0A1BEDE50EF206D98D40@HE1PR0701MB2539.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CANh-dXkWA6rm23NU9s-w2-oz6Sqqv7RhsDM5teup8EDGmUhRuA@mail.gmail.com> <22969.1499631064@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <C813D747-26FF-493A-8215-A88B1F1828D3@tzi.org>
From: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Message-ID: <f455582f-baef-2601-33cb-c2c0312e18a9@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:45:28 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C813D747-26FF-493A-8215-A88B1F1828D3@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [134.102.43.163]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/bMM0TIZ0ZU6ucV1r-umrUAkt6fs>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] 🔔 Confirmation call for Working Group Adoption for draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sun, 09 Jul 2017 22:45:42 -0000

Hi all,

I have personal knowledge coming from commercial and IETF parties and 
other SDO that would like to use "CDDL instead of english" to create 
normative content and that this course of action would be "very 
appreciated" to say at the least.

I will bring this up. I cannot project the opinion of the group, but I 
am cautiously optimistic and from my personal point of view I feel 
sympathetic with the effort and will support it.

Viele Grüße,

Henk

On 07/09/2017 10:37 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> I didn't think that CDDL would always require a normative reference from a
>> standards track document.
>>
>> My feeling is that if the structures are relatively simple that the CDDL is
>> self-describing.  Most readers and implementers won't need to go further.
> 
> I agree with the sentiment — but that’s not what happened with COSE (RFC 8152); IESG is going to insist on either duplicating all the normative content that uses CDDL, in another format (read: plain English (*)), or having a normative reference for CDDL.  I cannot really disagree with that from a formal point of view, so let’s make that happen.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> (*) I seriously started writing a CDDL to “plain English” converter, but then the situation defused a bit when the WG almost unanimously decided they wanted to have the CDDL in the main document.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email