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

[Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>]

See below.

-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019 9:53 AM
To: Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
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 <[e-mail]> 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?