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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sun, 23 June 2019 16:53 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 343701200C7; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 09:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 D0nuUsANVdZm; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 09:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.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 4DA7012000F; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 09:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from client-0062.vpn.uni-bremen.de (client-0062.vpn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.107.62]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45Wz4j4LtNzyh1; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 18:52:53 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <01f201d50ac9$d6b1abd0$84150370$@augustcellars.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 18:52:52 +0200
Cc: draft-bormann-cbor-sequence@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 583001569.77864-8f135aee96659190c603c16a0eb43d17
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CA0F439A-A578-4AE5-9E05-1277FF949997@tzi.org>
References: <01f201d50ac9$d6b1abd0$84150370$@augustcellars.com>
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/kZHhg5qWf6Y3A1C-q5RWPdv4Qq4>
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, 23 Jun 2019 16:53:01 -0000

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.

> […]
> 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.