Re: [Cbor] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-06: (with COMMENT)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 08 April 2021 06:13 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 9D2AF3A3BA1; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XOmdwQoAW7VE; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12F223A3B9F; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dc178.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.193.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FG9v16DdSzybQ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 08:13:49 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <161784658891.8883.7447256942679073873@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 08:13:49 +0200
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid@ietf.org, CBOR Working Group <cbor-chairs@ietf.org>, cbor@ietf.org, =?utf-8?Q?Christian_Ams=C3=BCss?= <christian@amsuess.com>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 639555228.020396-0a473edfb1ed1414e1b96e26732344e7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CC1A77CD-7114-4964-B0D1-6353CCCA4EAD@tzi.org>
References: <161784658891.8883.7447256942679073873@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/iXPHSfYUl3WIvyzNG9tJn7dD6fA>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 08 Apr 2021 06:13:56 -0000

Hi John,

> On 2021-04-08, at 03:49, John Scudder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-06: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 1. Section 2:
> 
>   Since the semantics of absolute and relative object identifiers
>   differ, this specification defines two tags, collectively called the
>   "OID tags" here:
> 
> Sure looks like three tags to me.

Indeed.  Ben Kaduk (whose comments I’m otherwise still processing) had a PR for this, which I merged.

> 2. Section 5:
> 
> Since this is the first place you refer to CDDL, put your reference to RFC 8610 here instead of §6?

Fixed (including expansion of abbreviation): https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-oid/commit/2d39560

Thank you!

Grüße, Carsten