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

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Sun, 30 June 2019 17:48 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 0A6631200F7; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 10:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 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, 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 lNZg8A7E9vxV; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 10:48:37 -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 2F34212010C; Sun, 30 Jun 2019 10:48:37 -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 10:48:30 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Carsten Bormann' <cabo@tzi.org>
CC: <draft-bormann-cbor-sequence@ietf.org>, <cbor@ietf.org>
References: <01f201d50ac9$d6b1abd0$84150370$@augustcellars.com> <CA0F439A-A578-4AE5-9E05-1277FF949997@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA0F439A-A578-4AE5-9E05-1277FF949997@tzi.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 10:48:28 -0700
Message-ID: <0e8901d52f6c$08291060$187b3120$@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: AQImhLicfHZBN1Ohg94FAkXRvyHrVAIUMN81pgErdRA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/jWTftovIEbcBFfKMQFmZdDjuVkk>
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: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 17:48:39 -0000

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?