IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Cbor] Why 0x42_4F_52 (was Re: 🔔 WG adoption call on draft-richardson-cbor-file-magic)

Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> Tue, 16 February 2021 20:13 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 1E1F13A105D for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:13:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 YwGgKT9qys6o for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:13:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p3plsmtpa09-07.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa09-07.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.193.236]) (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 C79683A105A for <cbor@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:13:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from laurences-mbp.gateway.2wire.net ([187.223.244.101]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPSA id C6iolC7WzHge0C6ipl8CQ2; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:13:23 -0700
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=UP0YoATy c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=602c2763 a=4DuQCvq92BI7+Z+mmVs66w==:117 a=4DuQCvq92BI7+Z+mmVs66w==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=5KLPUuaC_9wA:10 a=Pxjxk-o7AAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=AflaQ_pBDJCIe5xF0nYA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=CmotjvasbPAGDBUjbTOk:22 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
X-SECURESERVER-ACCT: lgl@island-resort.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
In-Reply-To: <YCwajOdK//yoqe20@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:13:22 -0700
Cc: cbor@ietf.org, draft-richardson-cbor-file-magic@ietf.org, cbor-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5E5A8BB1-CED3-495F-9B71-2EBB34923F5B@island-resort.com>
References: <YCwajOdK//yoqe20@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
To: Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfCWXhWboqXBtK6tF3Ms3DoxynyXkjOqwXt8YeGY3l70IFb+pVNDIz8oiF8tMIFxIA2looTG1sbwp76b0Wu1ptA5CGpCfL+aK6Fr0tdNfl10KcxVRbimz AxsSDkWiZW8SgKc6i6ep7rZjBCMhlrbYFBzMPKkAK/eUtmRsiHQZ8uGfXlHAzl0+55O2WhOlsMZM3qwb2NGgPKb3bknl/9jso5WsO/oCIxItxY2sF1GGp5+/ ECDLqS0YfOg2+Mc3Fu8+s3yM7kPjds8/oxTYjJV7gjitamUPLXCLSzX6aO6DjurtrIN6OFwgJ7lJ8Xi3nGbU70xUCaPEejCzjk4lrxwKpPc=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/osC52Hm89fgS_YtYtlnGZiMiEOQ>
Subject: [Cbor] Why 0x42_4F_52 (was Re: 🔔 WG adoption call on draft-richardson-cbor-file-magic)
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: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 20:13:25 -0000

Can you say why part 3, 0x42_4F_52, is added? The only reason I can think of is that 55799 is not unique enough. 

If we need it, can it be at the start so that the part 2 tag can be part 3 so you can just hand the end part to protocol decoders for COSE, CWT, CoSWID and so on? With the 0x42_4F_52 in there, you can’t do that.

LL


> On Feb 16, 2021, at 12:18 PM, Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello CBOR group,
> 
> This starts a WG adoption call on
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-richardson-cbor-file-magic-01>,
> ending on 2021-03-02 (Tuesday before the IETF). Please reply to this
> thread by stating support or opposition of the adoption.
> 
> Even if you have voiced your opinion in the interim meeting where this
> was presented[1], please send something (be it only a "+1") anyway, for
> this helps us document the WG's support.
> 
> CBOR Chairs
> Francesca & Christian
> 
> [1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2021-cbor-03/session/cbor
> 
> -- 
> A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that the
> balances are correct.
>  -- Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email