[Cbor] Re: Private tag numbers / 1010

[Vadim Goncharov <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 05:12:30 +0100
Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 16. Dec 2024, at 04:59, Vadim Goncharov <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Are there discussions? In list of allocated tags I haven't found
> > anything like this (like 1010).  

This sentence was for "a non-URI alternative to 1010".

> You can find the IANA registry for CBOR tags at:
> 
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags/cbor-tags.xhtml
> 
> Scroll down (or search for) 1010.
> 
> This has a reference to 
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rundgren-cotx/04/
> 
> ...which contains the definition of the tag, which is a bit loose (it only
> strictly defines the type identifier to be a text string, but then all
> examples and further discussions imply that these text strings are URIs
> [notably not IRIs]; it is also confused on whether the allocation of 1010
> has actually happened [“preliminary”???]). But that’s how 1010 is defined;
> when that tag finds use I would expect the user community to work a bit on
> tightening that document.

Raises again the question of whether 1010 should be reused for non-URI
(including IRIs) e.f. for DIDs, or not.

-- 
WBR, @nuclight