IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Cbor] Re: Private tag numbers / 1010

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sun, 15 December 2024 07:20 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 1C78EC169422 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 23:20:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.205
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.205 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Ku7aHcZos2b7 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 23:20:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4D8FC14F68D for <cbor@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 23:20:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p548dc3ec.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.195.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Y9vc93mfrzDCc9; Sun, 15 Dec 2024 08:20:25 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.300.87.4.3\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <9e31c69f-f714-4431-bc25-ccde09fe07e5@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2024 08:20:14 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5DE0D5E9-1F84-4051-9332-1E17CBA4C023@tzi.org>
References: <AS2PR09MB6342AB1E5DFF19EDFB65F25F8C609@AS2PR09MB6342.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com> <8AD1E3E6-A474-4D4D-B404-66172DF8C481@tzi.org> <20230723010552.01d80062@nuclight> <c40b9570-5e22-73c8-744f-1e141edea875@gmail.com> <20241215031403.63e93131@nuclight.lan> <755d93c9-d253-4558-b6ac-d3e1f4555535@gmail.com> <971C7876-CD38-4038-A6C1-BF3F1D0F8E6D@tzi.org> <9e31c69f-f714-4431-bc25-ccde09fe07e5@gmail.com>
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.300.87.4.3)
Message-ID-Hash: X4M4PAFQOQ3DUEDXP342U6PGKX7BOUO2
X-Message-ID-Hash: X4M4PAFQOQ3DUEDXP342U6PGKX7BOUO2
X-MailFrom: cabo@tzi.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-cbor.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Vadim Goncharov <vadimnuclight@gmail.com>, Tony Putman <Anthony.Putman@dyson.com>, "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Cbor] Re: Private tag numbers / 1010
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)" <cbor.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/pOMdzNPmVHJpersUZd6bNUD-RXY>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:cbor-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cbor-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cbor-leave@ietf.org>

On 15. Dec 2024, at 08:06, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> OK, then I would settle for bstr (like COSE's "kid") because that gives you highest flexibility.

COSE’s kid [0] records a unilateral decision to call something (a key) something (an opaque byte string).
It is essentially used as a hint if this information is reflected back to the system that gave it a name.
(kids are also instance identifiers, not type identifiers.)

Type identifiers are different:

* first of all because there are intended as types,
* but also because they usually are meant to transfer processable information from one player to another one,
* in particular if they are intended to have a unique meaning and are dereferenceable [1].

bstr won’t do.

Grüße, Carsten

[0]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9052#section-3.1-3.8
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bormann-t2trg-deref-id-04.html

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status