Re: [Cbor] 🔔 WG adoption call on draft-bormann-cbor-tags-oid-07

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

> Minor things I could see improving:
> 1) I think that the PCRE description in section 2.1 may be more heat than light.
>  For those who speak PCRE, it's great, and for those who don't, it just mystifies.
>  Those who speak PCRE probably already got the english text.

I generally benefit from having a concept explained in different ways.
This allows me to verify my nascent understanding.

(We need to make sure that it is clear that this is just explanation, an “example” in some way, and not the normative part — that is in RFC 6256.)

> 2) I have some concerns about the complexity of the Tag Factoring when it
>   comes to the nesting.

Indeed.  If we want to keep it, we need to find constraints on the interpretation that are manageable but maintain some usefulness.

>   Also, as I read it the first time, I thought it meant:
> 
>   <TBD111>"bstr for 1.3.6.1.2.1"[126,127,128,129]
> =>
>   [ <TBD111>"bstr for 1.3.6.1.2.1.126",
>     <TBD111>"bstr for 1.3.6.1.2.1.127",
>     <TBD111>"bstr for 1.3.6.1.2.1.128"
>     <TBD111>"bstr for 1.3.6.1.2.1.129"]
> 
>   but that's *NOT* the intention :-)

No.  Due to the way OIDs are used, that is also rarely what is needed.

> 3) It would probably be good to have a few use cases.
>   If there is an intention to be able to round trip signed certificates,
>   then this should be explicit.

You mean as in draft-mattsson-cose-cbor-cert-compress?
They get by without OIDs…

Grüße, Carsten