From nobody Mon Apr 5 16:49:00 2021 Return-Path: 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 0178E3A2D09 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:48:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 q4l-FWmZEJel for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:48:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf1-x42d.google.com (mail-pf1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61E653A2D06 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:48:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id a12so9158993pfc.7 for ; Mon, 05 Apr 2021 16:48:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ecu474aFqMa1JV82rriMY0MUYAKgq5FJHoC5F6bcElg=; b=XO+nBtB80ai5wjtX9ar+Ls2mBCcvRXKJJPW0BFwB7PqxXxhxFFDruBnZNtS/vbaKID KX/gmutwhyOTiVE0HL585ndVQXnYcXbfBjT3Xa/suoR8Z6HFXAAmaUK1TCh8S1lwbAhp eI629SQHYzKGTQRGGumNI2uxMqlX6IVeAdp3kXiQqBxCrWlyAnrCxqJxM40wRSsZPOq3 qR6q8WsDVgy/rBkQMRyiRFL8jTXayOSbjHZgYCuQCuy5qR/YNWLjvsprLp19xu1TnzKo FmQgHhSUuNVXBEWZqGfMeT18Z1arNaxRhyWPXv/85qLidlFIm7fE3mumvPiITgm8q05c Rxpg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ecu474aFqMa1JV82rriMY0MUYAKgq5FJHoC5F6bcElg=; b=nz1jmF64b1L3NLdWF55N/ag+4FXZ9qAHO8POlcEL8EH95n3Kdu90GS3nFWInA9vS9R czlSrYQC88DKz2dRd4hdpFe7hcZcRiaUBJodEeixgJAjheqAsJmTWOJUGZP9dne6BtSL 3fJ9et+E1ZlNoqHQnpVe070HEixEjvVuPZxeg+EH5KVfQGaesYaSv9cYygFno4wR5Qdr fFqLskJpM0QjLKi3tqDUdtx8kvxRTlGTrAqjdQgvETYQZJ92LZunNHxzZHT6Gmc5/ymD FSqzslljoIaZTZEQcmvKCUE9UYMudoJqZp7B292qtxyiTAr2U+E34CXhysj/XXwdGwDK fJFw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531xJFuymvmoRnkupE2tDVHOaQB7q2F2+HLfoCmvFzHqBdOEAyr+ 369kxEZMpeaq2ofWnCkO1AtzinOPT/S7iKxaNKI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwMQ/0nuYy5JsNtbW92qCLgdupkvdNUFPwwZLSXZPKiKpSOClfzupP2egBcz/djwCgUOe1tfjrNc0Z5XMGM55c= X-Received: by 2002:a62:3246:0:b029:224:6c6f:b3f2 with SMTP id y67-20020a6232460000b02902246c6fb3f2mr25066392pfy.68.1617666532211; Mon, 05 Apr 2021 16:48:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2403465.MzrCfxQRY8@tjmaciei-mobl1> <2096114.vpHZ4K6Zy5@tjmaciei-mobl1> In-Reply-To: From: Emile Cormier Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 20:48:41 -0300 Message-ID: To: Laurence Lundblade Cc: cbor@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000047f0105bf425790" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Cbor] Encoding Arbitrary Time Ratios X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 23:48:58 -0000 --000000000000047f0105bf425790 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 8:37 PM Laurence Lundblade wrote: > > It=E2=80=99s been done.:-) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8943 > Darn, I missed tag 100 in the CBOR tags list! I would have expected something like that to be adjacent to tag 1004. I guess the intent was to save an extra byte. Tag 100 is "Unsigned or negative integer", no floating point. I can certainly live with that. Alright I'd like to drop my original "scaled ratio" idea, as it doesn't seem that it will gain much traction. At least one thing that came out of this discussion (from Thago) is there's currently no way to explicitly express a "time of day" semantic. Thank you all for indulging me in this "out-of-the-box" idea. :-) Cheers, Emile Cormier --000000000000047f0105bf425790 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 8:37 PM Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> wrote:

It=E2=80=99s been done.:-) =C2=A0https://tools.ietf.org/html= /rfc8943

Darn, I missed tag= 100 in the CBOR tags list! I would have expected something like that to be= adjacent to tag 1004. I guess the intent was to save an extra byte.

Tag 100 is "Unsigned or negative integer",= no floating point. I can certainly live with that.

Alrig= ht I'd like to drop my original "scaled ratio" idea, as it do= esn't seem that it will gain much traction. At least one thing that cam= e out of this discussion (from Thago) is there's currently no way to ex= plicitly express a "time of day" semantic.

Thank you all for indulging me in this "out-of-the-box" id= ea. :-)

Cheers,
Emile Cormier
<= /div>
--000000000000047f0105bf425790--