Re: [Cbor] 🔔 WGLC on draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-02

[Ira McDonald <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Like Henk, I've been overwhelmed in the last month and missed this one.

I strongly agree that this document is ready to send for IETF Last Call.

Cheers,
- Ira

*Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)*

*Chair - SAE Trust Anchors and Authentication TF*
*Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG*

*Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG*








*Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WGSecretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer
Working GroupCo-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WGIETF
Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIBBlue Roof Music / High North
Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto: [e-mail]
<[e-mail]>(permanent) PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434*


On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 7:40 AM Henk Birkholz <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi chairs,
> hi CBOR WG,
>
> I am so sorry that I missed to reply to this call. In fact, it is
> essential to improve existing work on large component manifests
> represented in CBOR.
>
> I've read the I-D and am in strong favor of progressing of progressing
> this work.
>
> Viele Grüße,
>
> Henk
>
> On 15.12.20 23:37, Francesca Palombini wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The WGLC has officially ended, but I'd appreciate a couple more eyes on
> this, so if you have the time, please take a look. Also, here is my
> shepherd review. There is one point where I'd like to get the authors and
> the WG's opinion, see the first point below.
> >
> > * I am not sure (and please correct me if I am wrong!) there ever was a
> conclusion to Jim's comment about not seeing the necessity of going below
> one layer for maps and arrays:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/5lj35zvO85Yu2tVO_Fw__KWLadc/
> - this was discussed at an interim:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2020-cbor-14/materials/minutes-interim-2020-cbor-14-202009021700-00.txt
> And I see the text Jim referred to was clarified, but as shepherd I'd like
> to see more opinions on this point: anybody else seeing a problem with
> Carsten's point of "if you don't need all bstr tagged, don't use the tag on
> the map/array" ? Anybody agrees with Jim and would rather this being a
> 1-level tag?
> >
> > * Update references to RFC 8949
> >
> > * normative references X.660, X.680 and X.690 are missing links
> >
> > * add a reference to IANA PEN registry
> >
> > "the first byte of each SDNV cannot be 0x80 (which would be a
> >     leading zero in SDNV's base-128 arithmetic)."
> >
> > "this requirement requires
> >        expressing the integer values in their shortest form, with no
> >        leading zeroes"
> >
> > * I would suggest reversing this sentence: "the first byte cannot be a
> leading zero in SDNV's base-128 arithmetic, so it cannot take value 0x80",
> possibly mentioning the requirement on the integer values being expressed
> in their shortest form. By the way, does this requirement comes from BER
> OID rules? Can you add some reference to where this is specified?
> >
> > "except for the last byte, where it must be
> >     unset"
> >
> > * either replace "must" with "is" or with "MUST" (I would suggest is,
> because the normative MUST before covers the requirement already)
> >
> > "its first byte" and "its last byte"
> >
> > * I would replace "its" by "the tag's" for clarity.
> >
> > * It seems to me that this document could benefit from a more expanded
> terminology section. In particular, I would quickly summarize the terms
> used from X.690 - e.g. arc - and SDNV.
> >
> > * Some introductory text for the examples in Section 3 would have been
> good.
> >
> > * I am a bit unsure about the reasoning behind section 4 "Discussion".
> Is this not background? Then in my opinion it would fit better in section 2.
> >
> > * I would have merged section 3 and 6 in one section "Examples"
> >
> >
> > Francesca
> >
> > On 29/10/2020, 10:57, "CBOR on behalf of Francesca Palombini" <
> [e-mail] on behalf of francesca.palombini=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >      CBOR wg,
> >
> >      This starts a two weeks WG last call on
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-02 , ending on
> *Thursday, 12th November*.
> >
> >      Please send inputs to the mailing list that you have read the
> document and do or do not feel it is ready to progress, along with any
> issues that you believe need to be dealt with.
> >
> >      We will discuss any open issues we’ve gotten during our WG meeting
> at IETF109 scheduled for Thursday, 19 November.
> >
> >      CBOR Chair
> >      Francesca
> >
> >      On 28/10/2020, 18:44, "CBOR on behalf of [e-mail]"
> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >          A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
> Internet-Drafts directories.
> >          This draft is a work item of the Concise Binary Object
> Representation Maintenance and Extensions WG of the IETF.
> >
> >                  Title           : Concise Binary Object Representation
> (CBOR) Tags for Object Identifiers
> >                  Authors         : Carsten Bormann
> >                                    Sean Leonard
> >               Filename        : draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-02.txt
> >               Pages           : 14
> >               Date            : 2020-10-28
> >
> >          Abstract:
> >             The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR,
> draft-ietf-cbor-
> >             7049bis) is a data format whose design goals include the
> possibility
> >             of extremely small code size, fairly small message size, and
> >             extensibility without the need for version negotiation.
> >
> >             The present document defines CBOR tags for object
> identifiers (OIDs).
> >             It is intended as the reference document for the IANA
> registration of
> >             the CBOR tags so defined.
> >
> >
> >          The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> >          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid/
> >
> >          There is also an HTML version available at:
> >
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-02.html
> >
> >          A diff from the previous version is available at:
> >          https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-02
> >
> >
> >          Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time
> of submission
> >          until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> tools.ietf.org.
> >
> >          Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> >          ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >
> >
> >          _______________________________________________
> >          CBOR mailing list
> >          [e-mail]
> >          https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
> >
> >      _______________________________________________
> >      CBOR mailing list
> >      [e-mail]
> >      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CBOR mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
>