Re: [Cbor] Review of draft-bormann-cbor-sequence

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Mon, 01 July 2019 01:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
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 5A4131201E3; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 18:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 s5Jj3nXCD7fb; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 18:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A05C61201E8; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 18:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 18:18:49 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Felipe Gasper' <felipe@felipegasper.com>
CC: <draft-bormann-cbor-sequence@ietf.org>, <cbor@ietf.org>, 'Carsten Bormann' <cabo@tzi.org>
References: <01f201d50ac9$d6b1abd0$84150370$@augustcellars.com> <CA0F439A-A578-4AE5-9E05-1277FF949997@tzi.org> <0e8901d52f6c$08291060$187b3120$@augustcellars.com> <4AF53D16-C6AE-4D53-9A3A-DF442D827D86@felipegasper.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AF53D16-C6AE-4D53-9A3A-DF442D827D86@felipegasper.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 18:18:48 -0700
Message-ID: <0eb801d52faa$f118fc70$d34af550$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQImhLicfHZBN1Ohg94FAkXRvyHrVAIUMN81Ar0OSnoBzkljRaXdUB1A
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/iYuiKlmSWg7xPBApXhoMs8sGNq4>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Review of draft-bormann-cbor-sequence
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: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 01:19:00 -0000

This is the text I was referring to

An
   implementation may be able to recover from some errors in a sequence
   of bytes that is almost, but not entirely a well-formed encoded CBOR
   data item.

-----Original Message-----
From: CBOR <cbor-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Felipe Gasper
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 2:56 PM
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
Cc: draft-bormann-cbor-sequence@ietf.org; cbor@ietf.org; Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Review of draft-bormann-cbor-sequence

What is the advantage of defining a CBOR data sequence as a simple concatenation versus a tagged CBOR array of indefinite length?

Thank you!

-FG

> On Jun 30, 2019, at 1:48 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:
> 
> See below.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019 9:53 AM
> To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
> Cc: draft-bormann-cbor-sequence@ietf.org; cbor@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Review of draft-bormann-cbor-sequence
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> except for items 3 and 5 below, where I don’t quite agree, I believe I have addressed all your comments as well as the other items that popped up for -00 in Prague and on the mailing list.
> 
> Please enjoy at:
> 
> Status:   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bormann-cbor-sequence/
> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-cbor-sequence
> Diff2:    https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bormann-cbor-sequence-01.txt
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> 
>> On May 15, 2019, at 04:56, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:
>> 
>> […]
>> 3.  Section 2 - I think that I would remove the parenthesis in the 
>> third paragraph.  This is almost the entire paragraph.
> 
> I believe that is useful information, so I don’t think the parenthesis should be removed.
> 
> [JLS] I am not suggesting that the sentence be removed, just the parenthesis characters.
> 
>> […]
>> 5.  Section 2 - A program, not the decoder, may also be able to 
>> recover by decoding individual fields looking for a pattern that 
>> matches an expected structure.  As an example, looking for a byte 
>> which corresponds to an array of 3 items and then test decoding to 
>> see if it works and continue from that point.
> 
> The specific recovery actions are out of scope (and the text says so).
> I don’t think we should give advice here for diagnostic tools beyond what is needed for a true decoder.
> 
> [JLS] The problem I have with this argument is that you are actually giving an example - should that example then be deleted?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor

_______________________________________________
CBOR mailing list
CBOR@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor