Re: [Cbor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8610 (6278)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 04 September 2020 19:42 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 5F0913A0F88 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 12:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 9-iKg8VQEaim for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 12:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02D583A0F83 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 12:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [100.96.229.190] (ip-109-41-64-222.web.vodafone.de [109.41.64.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Bjp3M2GGLzydW; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 21:42:07 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-CF0E1484-0DC5-40FD-B38E-C933439ECE08
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <000001d68260$096e6770$1c4b3650$@ewellic.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 21:42:06 +0200
Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, eds@reric.net, cbor@ietf.org, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, christoph.vigano@uni-bremen.de, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
Message-Id: <6E90EC7C-8ED3-4431-9263-06A6D594709E@tzi.org>
References: <000001d68260$096e6770$1c4b3650$@ewellic.org>
To: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17G80)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/rwg25qLnvkGj-Hl8i2HjfTX6yVQ>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 13:13:50 -0700
Subject: Re: [Cbor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8610 (6278)
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: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 19:42:12 -0000

The below is exactly what should never happen: having to encode detailed (and somewhat arcane) knowledge about a standard in the bowels of another, mostly unrelated standard. I think we hit the right balance  with VCHAR and SCHAR, we just forget to fix BCHAR.  But we can discuss that when we do the bis...

Sent from mobile, sorry for terse

> On 4. Sep 2020, at 05:03, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>> BCHAR = %x20-26 / %x28-5B / %x5D-7E / %x80-10FFFD / SESC / CRLF
> 
> Actually, if the range is meant to end at U+10FFFD (thus excluding the noncharacters U+10FFFE and U+10FFFF), then it should also exclude the following:
> 
> 1. the U+xxFFFE and U+xxFFFF noncharacters in every other plane
> 2. noncharacters U+FDD0 through U+FDEF
> 3. surrogate code points 0xD800 through 0xDFFF, which aren't even Unicode scalar values (hence not marked with "U+" notation)
> 
> Of course this goes for the definitions of PCHAR, SCHAR, and SESC as well.
> 
> A new symbol, NONASCII, could resolve all this:
> 
> NONASCII = %x80-D7FF / %xE000-FDCF / %xFDF0-FFFD
>         / %x10000-1FFFD
>         / %x20000-2FFFD
>         / %x30000-3FFFD
>         / %x40000-4FFFD
>         / %x50000-5FFFD
>         / %x60000-6FFFD
>         / %x70000-7FFFD
>         / %x80000-8FFFD
>         / %x90000-9FFFD
>         / %xA0000-AFFFD
>         / %xB0000-BFFFD
>         / %xC0000-CFFFD
>         / %xD0000-DFFFD
>         / %xE0000-EFFFD
>         / %xF0000-FFFFD
>         / %x100000-10FFFD
> [...]
> SCHAR = %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E / NONASCII / SESC
> SESC = "\" (%x20-7E / NONASCII)
> [...]
> BCHAR = %x20-26 / %x28-5B / %x5D-7E / NONASCII / SESC / CRLF
> [...]
> PCHAR = %x20-7E / NONASCII
> 
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
> 
>