Re: [Cbor] MIME tag 257 vs 36

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Sun, 20 September 2020 17:55 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 E72883A0B86 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 10:55:08 -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, 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 kKng7bl99NuB for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 10:55:07 -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 2B1BB3A0B85 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Sep 2020 10:55:07 -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, 20 Sep 2020 10:55:00 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Laurence Lundblade' <lgl@island-resort.com>, 'Carsten Bormann' <cabo@tzi.org>
CC: <cbor@ietf.org>
References: <77902B73-54E2-455C-88D3-D9CC62EDD84E@island-resort.com> <4271C433-0B38-4B05-AD44-01830EDBD834@tzi.org> <D4F397FE-79BF-41A5-9B14-3C2D9E7A83FA@island-resort.com> <C4D07067-D855-401F-9EA5-5F11F3896835@island-resort.com>
In-Reply-To: <C4D07067-D855-401F-9EA5-5F11F3896835@island-resort.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2020 10:54:58 -0700
Message-ID: <03e801d68f77$297a2800$7c6e7800$@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: AQJMUjLCS8iyjChD7ooMEYjc50Z3NQEX+uUGAnhXcDgCOzwPbqhX7I/A
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/ndDAdP99qlwc2UIfAbvE7IQzMD0>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] MIME tag 257 vs 36
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, 20 Sep 2020 17:55:09 -0000


-----Original Message-----
From: CBOR <cbor-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Laurence Lundblade
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 11:21 PM
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: cbor@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Cbor] MIME tag 257 vs 36

Shouldn’t both these MIME tags require canonical CRLF line endings? How else are the line endings going to end up correctly?

[JLS] The only place that I know of where canonical line endings is required is for S/MIME.  MIME itself uses LF or CRLF as a line ending just fine.

Makes me wonder about major type 3 too.  My understanding is that Unicode handles line endings like ASCII, it is neutral and happy to have CR, LF or CRLF so type 3 is neutral.

Text files are somewhat less common these days, but git still does conversion. CBOR could have a tag that indicates something is text with canonical CRLF line endings.

[JLS] There are a large number of source control systems that do CRLF <=> LF conversions during upload and download.  There are also a large number of other programs (such as browsers) that will do it in some cases as well.  This is due to the artifact that Windows and Linix do not create the same line endings by default and thus doing things like text file comparisons because difficult because every line is different.  I don't see this as a CBOR problem at all.

Jim


LL



> On Sep 16, 2020, at 11:52 AM, Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 16, 2020, at 9:22 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> Note that I just did PR#210 for the tag 35 issues; I don’t see a need to apply any further changes to the text on tag 36.
> 
> MIME has lots of internal mechanisms for variation and extension. Regular expressions seems to me a moving target not really oriented protocol interoperation. Tag 36 seems fine as is.
> 
> Thanks for the response.
> 
> LL
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor

_______________________________________________
CBOR mailing list
CBOR@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor