Re: [Cbor] [Json] Update Standard to support ECMA-262 BigInt

Carsten Bormann <> Tue, 04 May 2021 13:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505163A0AE8; Tue, 4 May 2021 06:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c77XPJBirkzy; Tue, 4 May 2021 06:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C44093A0AEE; Tue, 4 May 2021 06:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FZLX64k8lzyV6; Tue, 4 May 2021 15:38:30 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2021 15:38:30 +0200
Cc:, JSON WG <>, Daniel P <>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 641828310.162697-8fbb037fbffc0b1df239fb2a2318519d
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Pete Cordell <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] [Json] Update Standard to support ECMA-262 BigInt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 May 2021 13:38:38 -0000

On 2021-05-04, at 15:05, Pete Cordell <> wrote:
> The example wasn't intended to be about ABNF, but saying specifying formats in purely machine readable ways usually ends up being insufficient.  Having provision for human understood formats done in such a way that a machine can ask 'does this value conform to this format that you, smart human, have coded?' allows a simple way to side-step that problem.
> So in addition to the ABNF (or any other equivalent you might choose) you can also include to narratively define the constraints on say, date-mday etc.

Sure, we can add something like that, that is an interesting thought.

I’m mostly in favor of also providing a machine-executable form, which may not cover all the bases (if I say there is a “signature” of type “bstr”, I won’t be able to specify in CDDL what exactly I want from that :-).

Grüße, Carsten