Re: [Cbor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8610 (6278)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sun, 06 September 2020 05:22 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 413A13A0B1C for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 UQ4bL9r_jkdR for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.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 404423A0B16 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Sep 2020 22:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [100.95.163.204] (ip-109-41-65-204.web.vodafone.de [109.41.65.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Bkfts6HmhzySD; Sun, 6 Sep 2020 07:22:45 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-91C09CFA-4AA9-46E0-9A11-B9A1F022A150
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <000001d683b5$837e73b0$8a7b5b10$@ewellic.org>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2020 07:22:45 +0200
Cc: eds@reric.net, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, christoph.vigano@uni-bremen.de, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, cbor@ietf.org, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Message-Id: <B8319944-FEEA-4237-8826-75300B9177D4@tzi.org>
References: <000001d683b5$837e73b0$8a7b5b10$@ewellic.org>
To: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17G80)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/lnmrzUrLGeJuoqANSazLiMmJjF8>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 06 Sep 2020 08:21:20 -0700
Subject: Re: [Cbor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8610 (6278)
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, 06 Sep 2020 05:22:51 -0000

We didn’t set out to mirror all the exclusion of Unicode in the ABNF. 
But the range has to end somewhere, and we happen to know the largest number is 10FFFD, so we took that.  Again, I think we struck the right balance. 

Sent from mobile, sorry for terse

> On 5. Sep 2020, at 21:20, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org> wrote:
> 
> For that matter, even the value 10FFFD (or 10FFFF) can be considered detailed (and somewhat arcane) knowledge about Unicode. Removing that is left as an exercise.