IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Cbor] CDDL sockets (was: Re: [Anima] GRASP packet header extensions (CBOR question))

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Tue, 23 August 2022 10:30 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 6B2CEC1522AC; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 03:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 0fagF8rIMK6d; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 03:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 2B6E2C14CF1D; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 03:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE41058C4AF; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 12:30:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id B9EF14EB829; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 12:30:47 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 12:30:47 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, anima@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org
Message-ID: <YwSsV4bPcjWSgVIj@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <Yv+miC76QMc887cJ@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <A303E7B3-A83F-4B04-9C6F-5143E4A0B54D@tzi.org> <5fa4a9c7-bc0a-cba0-04fb-4cf5e7777c9e@gmail.com> <4E167B3F-9C68-4333-BB76-36119B8F39DF@tzi.org> <fa2a8d32-929d-46ec-97b3-b67ad33c23b7@gmail.com> <YwNHvF1wzS0yaZGe@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <899DC56C-C1B5-4DC2-99DA-694B3FEF7C56@tzi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <899DC56C-C1B5-4DC2-99DA-694B3FEF7C56@tzi.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/plURkplHVBDPY7qrTydfe8rWH_U>
Subject: [Cbor] CDDL sockets (was: Re: [Anima] GRASP packet header extensions (CBOR question))
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: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 10:30:54 -0000

On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 08:43:57PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Grasp-option really is the lower layer of extensibility, which allows you to create new messages that then conform to message-structure.  These should provide maximum flexibility.
> 
> (Message should be/employ a socket, to make this extension point more visible.)

Then let me understand the IMHO fundamental issue about sockets, using the
RFC8610 3.9 tcp-header example:

Lets say i define:

  tcp-header-structure [ tcp-header ]

And i have not defined any $$tcp-option

When an implementation of this now receives a CBOR array with not only
2 elements (seq, ack), but with more elements:

MUST it recognize this as a tcp-header-structure - according to CBOR parsing rules ?

(the way i read rfc8610, the answer is no)

MUST it ignore the array elements after ack ?

Cheers
    Toerless

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email