Re: [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949
Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> Sat, 06 May 2023 17:15 UTC
Return-Path: <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
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 91391C14CE3F for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 May 2023 10:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 NGMKmBao_1HM for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 May 2023 10:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32b.google.com (mail-wm1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 43BE6C14CE33 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 May 2023 10:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-3f420618d5bso2205855e9.1 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Sat, 06 May 2023 10:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1683393309; x=1685985309; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=VIRz5WTJuiXQjj0IXqyACMh9kBLVM5Lg5Mpf1d/R+nQ=; b=EhZEaEGJlJy2iukDx+OU5+9gl7K4uqkjlyp7JgUhgT2EuM+AYeBhGRxHG3eCkYa5w9 P8uVrmixLfyqrs+ZCUaSLskRnS94G4GSduS5Q+U3l7nk0yDNyVesRp3yp2USFmTQAtrJ 8H40mri3n1Eq/T2/LWx2MQ6LBQbSbA65lbsKR1QJxe7WjDcWOB3+xHiZCK5ojn5Gr36b wTVhI9Va8NIarObSbJ6S1zelMUI2QFra872ZwSx2UkGO7wgR7c1raydVAwLH6Yr0TUaR YEzgGfh8SgmwFCH3t0H7N4mG1AQBzLdCLvVku6Oph11G3PDpEXx1rB8F190FmvNxG3/c taRg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683393309; x=1685985309; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=VIRz5WTJuiXQjj0IXqyACMh9kBLVM5Lg5Mpf1d/R+nQ=; b=RyY7nr6bziLH9enFJXk0AQl/npXcX6rKaG5u5uEFKr6Vlwu+uNzEsHJ5Qa7e7Y7ZSZ mDe5oCPr+la47kI6Ept+ALoqewuB0Z0i0fd0lDFTtZDKRDvyJ6hviKNi7n2cUlvqkR7F 67Q6r08CQSLkOEjKurpG4dNRFkV2wH03qXDdjqKjI2ndsRkf7yw2LyIfXm35J7zrTzWo 09fyVF9AwF29H5JwZKSWyK1Bs7AqTY1YmmBBsw0MRO19dhpygIEEy9Xmj8ekwGTOu9P2 EcPt/GzHqCQ5UJefVujJgofwZEyEPp0j6s7oAt6gvqfUkPnOx9XuNaS5VIVwT87Rj4Iq bSCg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDwgQvGeUZsXQ+iwZt+g4Eyu43povjQi4EibyaNVU3BM1g2ZgY1V VJuG+byroUAevphGsygNN+sBhFm7ClE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ7T263p4iLXL1sHYb2PjO+hqvLv0fAu+YJ+IS4bPEZJzoHp+CPSbVrqPcg34O5qQeQfxWMQGQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:f610:0:b0:3f1:738f:d3d1 with SMTP id w16-20020a1cf610000000b003f1738fd3d1mr3764702wmc.4.1683393309562; Sat, 06 May 2023 10:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPV6:2a01:e34:ec4e:5670:1cdc:b50f:25e4:2cbd? ([2a01:e34:ec4e:5670:1cdc:b50f:25e4:2cbd]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id m21-20020a7bce15000000b003f17003e26esm11355446wmc.15.2023.05.06.10.15.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 06 May 2023 10:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <08fb5d31-f779-871a-b31d-91cf0563cbba@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 06 May 2023 19:15:06 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>
References: <8233a692-df84-f093-96bf-fe99c03adfc5@gmail.com> <31111796-3CF7-4F8F-A805-4CBE1124E9D8@tzi.org> <e16961f5-edbc-233e-3e24-e3a20bc57ea4@gmail.com> <14044F50-CAC6-4F4E-ADC2-D4C545FA5A63@island-resort.com> <d241367a-fd2e-ca8c-fba9-47526eafb31a@gmail.com> <9BD665E7-AA9B-4DC2-AE49-E256ED968E32@island-resort.com>
From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9BD665E7-AA9B-4DC2-AE49-E256ED968E32@island-resort.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/d-4YYCeg7BRunIZhKji17IYzygs>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949
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, 06 May 2023 17:15:15 -0000
On 2023-05-06 18:22, Laurence Lundblade wrote: > > >> On May 5, 2023, at 12:55 PM, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 2023-05-05 19:29, Laurence Lundblade wrote: >>> Us humans can indicate the value in question in many ways, “negative four”, “X subtract XIV" (a stretch since Roman’s didn’t have negative numbers), “-4” or “-4.0”. My understanding is that diagnostic notation is just another way to express a value and does NOT require any particular serialization. There’s not any normative requirement that diagnostic notation encode / decode in any particular way (and that is OK). >> >> According to Carsten, Appendix A is normative. > > It is examples, not specification. It doesn’t say that the examples are the only way to encode a particular item. it doesn’t mention preferred / non-preferred serialization. It gives examples of both. This is all fine. Carsten: "It is not marked as informative because it is normative. As far as examples can be normative, of course. But if your CBOR diagnostic notation implementation does not handle these examples as given, it is not a CBOR diagnostic notation implementation" This statement (presumably) builds on the idea that DN is a display/logging format only, while https://cbor.me, the EDN spec as well as my tools, show that DN can work in both directions which makes CBOR an even stronger alternative to JSON; it is bi-lingual (Text + Binary)! > DCBOR is a (useful) narrowing of CBOR so it can be expected that some of the examples don’t conform. DCBOR examples will conform to DCBOR. It must be a pleasure using using (a fictitious) "https:/dcbor.me" where you write "-4.0" and then when reversing the process get "-4". The only (tangible) thing achieved [*] is MORE confusion and incompatibility. 4.2 + Appendix A/Rule 2 is (essentially) all you need. Proven beyond doubt and simple to implement. Anders *] If saving bytes on the wire actually is the problem, shooting for 40-bit integers would probably give a much higher ROI. > > LL > > >
- [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949 Anders Rundgren
- Re: [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949 Anders Rundgren
- Re: [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949 Anders Rundgren
- Re: [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949 Anders Rundgren
- Re: [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949 Anders Rundgren
- Re: [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949 Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949 Laurence Lundblade
- Re: [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949 Anders Rundgren
- Re: [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949 Anders Rundgren
- Re: [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949 Laurence Lundblade
- Re: [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949 Anders Rundgren