Re: [Cbor] Managing CBOR numbers in Internet-Drafts
Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com> Thu, 23 February 2023 12:06 UTC
Return-Path: <carl@redhoundsoftware.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 678F4C1595E5 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 04:06:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.095 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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhoundsoftware.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kNs7Mp7kNXD0 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 04:06:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82d.google.com (mail-qt1-x82d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2F43C15257C for <cbor@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 04:06:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82d.google.com with SMTP id cf14so249386qtb.10 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 04:06:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhoundsoftware.com; s=google; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:in-reply-to:references :thread-topic:message-id:to:from:subject:date:user-agent:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=W6vL2e4USE6IXVdsLIirkBCyXza1PMveP5SJGs3zrpo=; b=C3nAfyEhDUdBj6uDhr/+ihzvWzkJUDvCa+Nf/cTkJVSmHANtaepMAvOxYkJ53pX1Ob 9/8n8D1QO6g27I1CP0z4DJ+hRZLhTr1o4Y4F/9mv6d7Jy5K0eezQD7OJYsXsfQKqp0Gj 707OO7Aoj9tqbDRVt09jzBLnrk3TknGt4BNE4=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:in-reply-to:references :thread-topic:message-id:to:from:subject:date:user-agent :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=W6vL2e4USE6IXVdsLIirkBCyXza1PMveP5SJGs3zrpo=; b=eIOFpo5tR+vjFQlmszuyhje0ppeZiHRsKm5akgqFo1we38VYWhVjAXGZriJDd9a0qu 0Xj3YBsU3M1qHmtW5xvPjwMvq7aBRTcTK2PYLBPh3jqddur9LCOw1Dg6YtGdp0CwCMbz +elgdSQQMo9QK+f1OXdQYHUo0FgwCaZ+xPaFFWGjFr0VnbcWlegcKhm9w44KfST7SE7Z 8fTsxaI14u1aCTkdDyO05tV/hEERuZSz9sc5xqtu+kVLsRVPXdXclwGZETEmQQo+sJTk snc5QhjYYikmXwGMDEPxPRDO+HJ94enTYg9lH+o/JK8nF7RALzeLkbpeLnyNlyMYcVTL aqdg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXJ5TG5RHgW049FGlvYIBYL6c3+YTP2b/z9I+JdmGS4vr4FebHD VotulUDiUrsP69U2vfZLGva6T+g6OTFkaLiqegM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+o/EeJzrjzvtWH9XILh26FxRFkCRDW8lp3eODxWcqTtiv7FmAbZAIdd9KbwzxapJE5IQaujg==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7e89:0:b0:3b8:61df:e298 with SMTP id w9-20020ac87e89000000b003b861dfe298mr20104806qtj.3.1677153984541; Thu, 23 Feb 2023 04:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.16] (pool-74-96-253-253.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [74.96.253.253]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ca26-20020a05622a1f1a00b003b62e8b77e7sm6107964qtb.68.2023.02.23.04.06.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Feb 2023 04:06:24 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.70.23021201
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 07:06:23 -0500
From: Carl Wallace <carl@redhoundsoftware.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, cbor@ietf.org
Message-ID: <D0EB2F06-2914-4963-BBEE-367D65FD2ACE@redhoundsoftware.com>
Thread-Topic: [Cbor] Managing CBOR numbers in Internet-Drafts
References: <B81A8FEF-C091-47C0-8DB4-3B20F658CBCF@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <B81A8FEF-C091-47C0-8DB4-3B20F658CBCF@tzi.org>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/omPW-rgYQXe1tLjVyM3Ey-z8uvo>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Managing CBOR numbers in Internet-Drafts
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 12:06:29 -0000
This seems like a set of practices that ought be documented like this. I have a few comments/questions/suggestions. 1) In table 1, the Key column features values that do not appear in the document. It'd likely be easier for IANA if CPA-1 were used in the definition of the title field, for example. It'd be a little more work on the spec author but would help make sure replacements are done correctly. 2) I wonder if a map is the best example. Most maps I've seen with numeric keys don't generally seek IANA assigned values. Groups seem like a better example or maybe a map that features a group that contributes keyed fields (see CoSWID) and maybe some guidance on where IANA assigned values would be useful (we don’t really want/need IANA assigned values for every field of every structure). 3) Including an example of pre and post IANA action would be useful for both spec authors and IANA. 4) Including examples of other things that generate the need for temporary numbers, like tags, would be good. 5) Do we need a indicator in addition to CPA that signifies an example must be regenerated (vs updated by IANA) for use in things like signed data? On 2/22/23, 5:33 AM, "CBOR on behalf of Carsten Bormann" <cbor-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:cbor-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of cabo@tzi.org <mailto:cabo@tzi.org>> wrote: After running into the problem again while developing another draft, I finally wrote up how I think we should handle the management of CBOR numbers while developing Internet-Drafts. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bormann-cbor-draft-numbers-00 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bormann-cbor-draft-numbers-00> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bormann-cbor-draft-numbers-00.html <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bormann-cbor-draft-numbers-00.html> (readable) This submission is probably too late for today’s interim, but feedback is requested! Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ CBOR mailing list CBOR@ietf.org <mailto:CBOR@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>
- [Cbor] Managing CBOR numbers in Internet-Drafts Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Cbor] Managing CBOR numbers in Internet-Draf… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Cbor] Managing CBOR numbers in Internet-Draf… Carl Wallace
- Re: [Cbor] Managing CBOR numbers in Internet-Draf… Marco Tiloca