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

Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com> Fri, 15 January 2021 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <blueroofmusic@gmail.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 63BBA3A0D71 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 05:50:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 yJCxlbHdzGUr for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 05:50:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe36.google.com (mail-vs1-xe36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D86023A0D29 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 05:50:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe36.google.com with SMTP id x4so5021151vsp.7 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 05:50:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=qS20Nz3TvwPPipaGQVS1gM6vMsveoEwWtF+QYUu2mms=; b=SQvU92jOK/ZAEiQmzXgkpcgxhFaC24Ip17Zv7Bz//p0zaqBAiZ2aDqTf5BzFUUP9ql RP+9HNawpO7cQvnURiUFMNj0AUZcvIdDKXijQjWnQLqSqA80fX3zniT7HgjIdcCsTuDp si/o1OZ5kzhIjJ4o/YfWOv6kbyNcQ+7dB4m1w7DgPMQwlKrXXxU7oKkJJsC6qeltUHIO 2M7oIvZ4TU32AM0v6HQzHabEfaZBkwYNfaiMrSovzS8OClsCywzlWba6n5Wcwa4XUmRV oXMAf/iEZ0M93oqwAz/xvxaef9HamVXGQ/KsZ5IBPKzs2GPxHSA8OfedrYvBxpstT5YR k+Qw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qS20Nz3TvwPPipaGQVS1gM6vMsveoEwWtF+QYUu2mms=; b=MsSotl1kHtqAGsVwaKq2rQRnWAE+lpxkMtqnZlscDl1AOnLBIeK/mqBEi+4DvXU91l B0hnGE7JkEBRUHK9emdbFUqGb0Twq8ywy/LYtuXHycjPhoFT/OL8j6wuPD4tPKVw6wwR 1Xw9IkClNzI+fJVOlN0bXMNYykHLCNdEhdPyrle9Wk4nCKJS/KWVqlqnuHlDYcCemMfr f5vI+XwAMchZ0cWXKpR89+4958Ch+hOl4uDqzVtbmas28R5n6/I+esYWTUe5jkSyKB/l AU3N4LJTV1Wn8pz78HDhO8yP+HNnCXaP7qQYHEHr98O5kqJcsxsA7ckCMi1TFfsC5W13 wHeA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532cjNBcPBfCWMkYzJoB4iEJZ5WLHlLGrCckl/t89cYYajEYe//U 45y6ZMoG5suqXBCvNYqaLnT6n+DN/prvEByofhU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzia4LriMfsnA79LLDNofaSubtg6jXIrgsQWs//3gb9svP6KbRHPBkHBffpJ8k3CmiASDiDjgDXbobEDl+69FE=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:cb1a:: with SMTP id b26mr10537373vsl.22.1610718644968; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 05:50:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <37C21414-561B-47EA-9DCD-9166B2F8FD46@ericsson.com> <68298cbd-8c59-8856-f07a-76812e179609@sit.fraunhofer.de>
In-Reply-To: <68298cbd-8c59-8856-f07a-76812e179609@sit.fraunhofer.de>
From: Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 08:50:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CAN40gSt90jeu5DTDDAPt7MOXP+tbFCF1b0JygfOSeKoDvhjHFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>
Cc: cbor@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aaa25505b8f0a881"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/oETrz_ggdtjnOthqiIvoFfsT6nk>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] =?utf-8?q?=F0=9F=94=94_WGLC_on_draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-0?= =?utf-8?q?2?=
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: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:50:48 -0000

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: blueroofmusic@gmail.com
<blueroofmusic@gmail.com>(permanent) PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434*


On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 7:40 AM Henk Birkholz <
henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de> 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" <
> cbor-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of francesca.palombini=
> 40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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 internet-drafts@ietf.org"
> <cbor-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of internet-drafts@ietf.org> 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
> >          CBOR@ietf.org
> >          https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
> >
> >      _______________________________________________
> >      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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
>