IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com> Thu, 20 July 2017 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <dev+ietf@seantek.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 05AD112704A for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 F_UEYMUiHpdO for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (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 E730B13146E for <cbor@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.216] (unknown [70.166.5.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3D4222E271; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 10:22:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
Message-Id: <774331C9-367B-45D6-B4DC-ED36D2589D17@seantek.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A332714B-3FE7-4BC0-8880-BC631DCDF791"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:22:19 -0700
In-Reply-To: <C14E4B01-C496-458B-9458-A131B36CCA8A@tzi.org>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
References: <HE1PR0701MB25390DA8E0A1BEDE50EF206D98D40@HE1PR0701MB2539.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <2FBE4C5B-2661-437A-883F-4F6E7FFBF204@seantek.com> <432f706c-dfab-0dd9-60c5-f761a1a95f67@gmail.com> <6B06F9C0-8002-4FB6-AF01-8C049C0FE7BB@seantek.com> <C14E4B01-C496-458B-9458-A131B36CCA8A@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/eDKBwZbMi20IarJMeCjqnDMqqgk>
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: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:22:44 -0000

> On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:16 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 16:03, Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com> wrote:
>> 
>> For now, you can precisely define your CBOR message format using prose.
> 
> The point of creating this WG and chartering it with completing the CDDL spec was that that frustrating exercise shall no longer be needed, just as ABNF has solved the same problem for textual protocols.

That was not my full quote. I wrote: “For now, you can precisely define your CBOR message format using prose. Or you can use some combination of CDDL and prose. Just reference CDDL informatively.” Since that is what the current CDDL draft itself says: “The matter in how far the data description must be enforced by an application is left to the designers and implementers of that application […].” 

On the original point of this thread, I continue to support WG adoption.

Regards,

Sean

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email