[Cbor] draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag: fixing the language about new registries
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 25 October 2023 09:30 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 C339FC15109E for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 02:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YWCm-2bkmsFt for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 02:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFC46C14F6EC for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 02:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eduroam-pool10-182.wlan.uni-bremen.de (eduroam-pool10-182.wlan.uni-bremen.de [134.102.90.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4SFkDb1MHnzDCbr; Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:30:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 719919022.701846-f6f595d96cf49cc34de9c23d83e9cc4b
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:30:22 +0200
Message-Id: <5D5A5292-22BD-4CBA-AD0A-598C198DE573@tzi.org>
To: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/koDSwl911HymAC_h7wKn-end2I4>
Subject: [Cbor] draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag: fixing the language about new registries
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 09:30:28 -0000
IANA has pointed us to some loose (and partially inconsistent) language in the timescale and the map key registries. Solving the inconsistency requires deciding between the two contradicting statement; I opted for timescale numbers to be unsigned as the IANA text said (not allowing negative numbers, as 3.4 said), simplifying implementation. This is strictly speaking a technical change, which is why I’m bringing this up here, but a rather innocuous one. If you care about this level of detail, please see: https://github.com/cbor-wg/time-tag/pull/24 (or, with a more widely cast net, https://github.com/cbor-wg/time-tag/pulls?q=is%3Apr for the recent language changes in a number of places). Grüße, Carsten
- [Cbor] draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag: fixing the langu… Carsten Bormann