[Cbor] Re: I-D Action: draft-mcnally-deterministic-cbor-10.html

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 31. Jul 2024, at 07:48, Anders Rundgren <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> - No scientific proof of the superiority of numeric reduction from a determinism point of view.
> 
> - No down-to-earth example showing how numeric reduction would aid the targeted applications.


- No scientific proof of the superiority of numeric reduction from a determinism point of view THAT I UNDERSTAND.

- No down-to-earth example showing how numeric reduction would aid the targeted applications THAT I UNDERSTAND.

FTFY.

The argument has been made here, you just chose not to follow it.
(Yes, the argument is based on an application that you may not have; this doesn’t make it less convincing.)

(I’m not sure what “scientific proof” means; I’d substitute “technically sound argument”.)

I think the more important observation is that you don’t have to fight against these applications; they just aren’t yours.
And, that it’s not CDE vs. dCBOR — dCBOR contains CDE as a layer, so it is actually “no additional layer” vs. “add layer that helps mapping certain numeric application data types to numeric CBOR data types in a deterministic fashion, so CDE can do its thing on the latter”.

(After last week’s bizarre discussion about layers in a different place, maybe I should use this term less.  But it is really useful...)

Grüße, Carsten