IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] What's your opinion of using CDDL to simultaneously define CBOR and JSON?

Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> Wed, 08 September 2021 22:00 UTC

Return-Path: <lgl@island-resort.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 27F503A09A5 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 15:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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 wCzDFRMVoVhS for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 15:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plsmtpa12-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa12-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [68.178.252.234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 178503A099E for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 15:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] ([75.80.148.243]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPSA id O5cOmhpVUUzFJO5cOmbytQ; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 15:00:32 -0700
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=KIyfsHJo c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=61393280 a=VPU1mRQhDhA4uSX60JRRww==:117 a=VPU1mRQhDhA4uSX60JRRww==:17 a=l70xHGcnAAAA:8 a=K6EGIJCdAAAA:8 a=zc6xUogvbi3BbwdouaIA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Ixlj5NOM5Tu0wPlygqoA:9 a=X6r-IPA12OHdwoSZ:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=JtN_ecm89k2WOvw5-HMO:22 a=L6pVIi0Kn1GYQfi8-iRI:22
X-SECURESERVER-ACCT: lgl@island-resort.com
From: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
Message-Id: <1408D50A-18CC-42AA-BCF9-E8D8E6F87354@island-resort.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_491AD532-ECFB-48B6-A349-D83A8DD6D63A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 15:00:32 -0700
In-Reply-To: <14293.1631135238@localhost>
Cc: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, cbor@ietf.org
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
References: <51537C68-F495-4750-9376-A637BD0E78DD@island-resort.com> <0d4b6a9a-dc26-ee31-725b-3689dfdce041@sit.fraunhofer.de> <4BD93D61-1668-4AE8-B59B-ABC2D3F5C455@island-resort.com> <14293.1631135238@localhost>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfI1/Ar9H7WIKTsOPLkVOJSX+p1YEA6ZHqCtPKJyKDbx1iJgDyztrdzNA4nwQ06miSN+hX4rn/s7ca3UvHwSPz1pdFz8EAWNCUeDEWZi2XHvvAU6/SPM7 WJpv5i7W0+16BhSN8MXaybxgzJT2ntQ3q3rKyCov9YPgE4tz7x6sorJelU7x8pv0FLs8yfoEmGTBKzf2dhPYHRefocKpZde/QittQhDPWkeTmEaE3EHa4Df9 JqpYqCna8g/DdGTCSiv9QoGx28yanbLBdlSOw7YyitE=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/mznckV0st4MsBsyfzLhIn4TgUZE>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] What's your opinion of using CDDL to simultaneously define CBOR and JSON?
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: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 22:00:38 -0000

> On Sep 8, 2021, at 2:07 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> wrote:
>> As far as I know, no I-D or standard has defined a protocol solely,
>> directly, and abstractly in CDDL such that it simultaneously specifies
>> CBOR, JSON and other encoding except EAT.
> 
> RFC8995 uses CDDL to describe a JSON encoding of enrollment status, and
> voucher status POST content.
> 
> draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher uses the same CDDL with a CBOR encoding.
> 
> Is that what you are looking for?

In concept yes, but in practice not what I was thinking/expecting. As far as I can see draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher does not make direct normative reference to voucherstatus-post or voucherstatus.cddl.

I didn’t try to read these documents so hopefully I haven’t missed something. I did some greps to look for the references I was expecting. Is there some way that draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher is directly referencing the CDDL (e.g. voucherstatus-post) that I’ve missed. It looks like a parallel/equivalen definition to me.

LL

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email