IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] Diagnostic notation file extension

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 20 April 2023 04:00 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 4FE9FC16B5A9 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 21:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 huFrORnYeVL7 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 21:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 429BFC137393 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 21:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p548dc9a4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.201.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Q23pY4ynrzDCcl; Thu, 20 Apr 2023 06:00:21 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.500.231\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <dcf56d68-b56f-a74f-6065-f6a0e084c112@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 06:00:10 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <81C91E67-51F9-4368-916C-EB3DA1928910@tzi.org>
References: <dcf56d68-b56f-a74f-6065-f6a0e084c112@gmail.com>
To: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.500.231)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/f2JmA7vK9HzFCA1gGeY9nkRQXkM>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Diagnostic notation file extension
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: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 04:00:28 -0000

On 19. Apr 2023, at 08:41, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Since CBOR diagnostic notation seems bound to become an important solution for configuration and test files, I wonder if an appropriate file extension has been defined.  If not, I would consider '.cbor-dn’.

I just had a look at various IETF efforts that have collected sets of CBOR diagnostic files.

.diag seems to be pretty much the consensus.

E.g.:

https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-voucher/tree/master/examples
https://github.com/core-wg/href/tree/main/example
https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/draft-ietf-rats-corim/tree/main/cddl/examples
https://github.com/ietf-rats-wg/eat/tree/master/cddl/Example-Payloads

Yes, we could argue whether “.diag" is specific enough to CBOR diagnostic.
It is what people have been overwhelmingly using for a while.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status