Re: [Cbor] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-date-tag-06: (with COMMENT)

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike,

Given that Carsten feels strongly on this and I don't, leaving it is okay.

Regards,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Jones <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 10 September 2020 14:33
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; Carsten Bormann
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; CBOR Working Group <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Cbor] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-date-
> tag-06: (with COMMENT)
> 
> On the "unsigned or negative" comment, I followed what Carsten Bormann
> told me was prevailing CBOR terminology usage.  But if the IESG wants me
> to change the text in the introduction to "positive, zero, or negative",
> I'm open to that as well.
> 
> 				Cheers,
> 				-- Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 2:53 AM
> To: Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>
> Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; CBOR Working Group <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Cbor] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-date-
> tag-06: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Carsten,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: 03 September 2020 10:06
> > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; CBOR Working Group <[e-mail]>;
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Cbor] Robert Wilton's No Objection on
> > draft-ietf-cbor-date-
> > tag-06: (with COMMENT)
> >
> > On 2020-09-03, at 11:03, Robert Wilton via Datatracker
> > <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I find the wording of "unsigned or negative" to be slightly jarring,
> > presumably
> > > written this way to include 0 in the set of allowed values.
> >
> > Well, these are the two component major types we have in CBOR (0 for
> > unsigned, 1 for negative) that together are used to span the integers,
> > so I think we should stick with the established terminology.
> [RW]
> 
> Personally, at least for the introduction, I think that seems to be
> conflating the date model (signed integer) with the encoding.
> 
> Certainly, I think that the more prevalent and established terminology for
> integers is that they can be positive, negative, or 0 rather than
> "unsigned and negative".
> 
> But these are just comments.  The authors/WG are free to do with them as
> they wish ;-)
> 
> 
> On a side point, not directly related to this draft, I note that in draft-
> ietf-cbor-7049bis, section 3.1 Major Types has:
> 
> "Major type 0:  an integer in the range ..."
> 
> Would it make sense to change that to "an unsigned integer in the range
> ..." (given that major type 1 is "a negative integer ...")?
> 
> Regards,
> Rob
> 
> 
> >
> > Grüße, Carsten