IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 20 November 2018 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 2A64A12D4E9 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:56:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 MUC-YfyVOhjE for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:56:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30D1D1277BB for <cbor@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:56:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C2320089; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:56:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 0DFC5E32; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:56:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C2AA9DB; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:56:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
cc: cbor@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <91D62AC5-769E-4D8A-915F-CD6E4902DB43@tzi.org>
References: <154269134623.26525.15947501642666003321.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <91495E47-A203-472E-8FFB-19A648D537C0@tzi.org> <29344.1542730100@localhost> <91D62AC5-769E-4D8A-915F-CD6E4902DB43@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:56:20 -0500
Message-ID: <5807.1542740180@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/piEaU5u_Rx0Zjs7-8HIWEf8EdMU>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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, 20 Nov 2018 18:56:24 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    Adam> With the lack of any version indicators in CDDL, this seems like a
    Adam> straight-up interoperability issue.

    >> Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    >>> There is no expectation that a tool that does not implement a control
    >>> operator is particularly useful with a specification that does use it.
    >>
    >> okay, but wouldn't it still be good if there was a declaration at the top of
    >> the file as to which revision of the specification the CDDL is assuming,
    >> just so that the tool can fail gracefully?

    > Once there is such a revision, that might make sense.

Not really. It needs to in this version.
Something like:
          "CDDL RFC9123"

at the top....

    > Adding a control operator is not a revision — that is the whole point
    > about exposing an extension point.

Sure.

    > (A tool can easily compare its inventory of control operators with the
    > set used in the specification; no need for a separate declaration
    > here.)

So, the error is:
    "RFC9756 control operator found in specification that claims RFC9123"

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email