Re: [Cbor] Record proposal

Kris Zyp <kriszyp@gmail.com> Fri, 01 April 2022 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <kriszyp@gmail.com>
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 B13133A1112 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 14:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.108 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 ryWy3kf1HzGz for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 14:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62e.google.com (mail-ej1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62e]) (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 9BCE63A0DF4 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2022 14:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id k23so5038879ejd.3 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Fri, 01 Apr 2022 14:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dEtX0Gnt3c6+qjZkPQAKhua5MTH/cAW7j2ouQFUUbzQ=; b=GNfIYipAhxXQdfH0XTwTaRyS93piOMYX9e505AmmgwksM/KppM+VfT4m5XFQgM6j9o k32Jg2nTrYhnZ5upD2J2sLYOLMDsEr/BdDSILV4boYudAXi9YaBeynNITCRnlI862fPz 1zYu/FzYoYIvTeAngD65qUuUPHgFvh08TN0fiAH2D1w3zn7c8kwZQTWxrJOeUIN1ruEY PipnGivk7MlV/5fVE9gpemWdq5loqflJ27oEW8SjWQxoGqHeWJA3vKObAp+02AOBf49R pISUNctatHe7uoECPXce7rQdnpJm8Jt2dFFy+/h4EAtWZ+wjdMYhdi44pcsEfdf8fPnF uQ5Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dEtX0Gnt3c6+qjZkPQAKhua5MTH/cAW7j2ouQFUUbzQ=; b=FlKWy+O6B4lcZTxJG6dhAYiu6rBYEWRMIJGwdjJ3s9S2D3Dt1qoWpG2/m4y9v7occe bm/bhUonRsnDN1NxwyZy3jXXuFpGj4+ItIMxlLVypJw/Iabc78YZYgysqhqRMauvmv+Z VX0prQ0PN5NEbxIefZNI4qXruQo3AVzL+iuQ88Dv3DW7jFPWf11OFCOB5y6gZFwGaoWP uZofydtTMcVcH0CguzkcrBKfnf3EiGbJQPEgzRcennWKa6Si7ESMQ3Kq45GK6Ek5WwU2 myKZlbrtNWoilvJnvvUSG7DHo7SYo2CigvEaCngjsl07LT8UAVaDkkaln7uVRsLi/Uos RvWQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531RrhdMBhPq1yy9W2YxyaTTALcVVj577zZ8d6tRRTI+3LOMIaW3 hggV162hnO26deLUT5HWOgnKcgL5omHpqAm7OgM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw7GXdfrqFmhzG9DGqYaKAuCWlC9iH27CQ/ZtoAiFQ05QRnQyoiv+gretkiecjN2Ta8HTYINmEKguXUORuKBEg=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:5cb:b0:6cf:954:d84d with SMTP id t11-20020a17090605cb00b006cf0954d84dmr1566087ejt.560.1648848973532; Fri, 01 Apr 2022 14:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAEs2a6vNhrHhaiPUNtbJ68WYfbrprETPr+kmWNJgNXMSawyBig@mail.gmail.com> <E3F121DA-95EE-43C6-BC72-E3763C034944@tzi.org> <CAEs2a6uZrT9FFP6qa+hPV2sYO0y+xJJmLaF-pPoynE2vqspfBg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEs2a6uHyvvghAMCN=UmhpJMoiES7zoPmGi-bATZWXgjA068Mg@mail.gmail.com> <YY0B4YxuMuw20umu@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <CAEs2a6utA=GQSx2Ln=5wnoNdS6z+0ExdCcfNXG6cAg=1MxnT=w@mail.gmail.com> <901541DC-A520-44CD-AA8D-F2CE77F03FA0@tzi.org> <CAEs2a6sZd4s-DJ3R_M4BLwO12s8i2AGfv0yXCaWdy+baOuAEqw@mail.gmail.com> <8CA1A63D-70B5-4109-ABE7-9CF9197F0375@tzi.org> <CAEs2a6uTKJ1DOTjREjKaRSY6kNAHSof97OoRAZbjDWOazLQC+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAEs2a6tY02haauD4OL18fp15Zet2bqkq+xVzEvAEiK5cvTpy2w@mail.gmail.com> <5C7719D8-8DCB-41BE-9111-882A02D43506@tzi.org> <CAEs2a6vVL9_wvrbwske80m5P5Y1xKw6_ecitDL9uybf2TsvWHw@mail.gmail.com> <CAEs2a6tW7K71wKfK-EerdntmyTppqDrz=Fjb7BfADXAkH5N3gA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM70yxB_YaRWccUk_UfLgxwd1gSUNxkDmaWfh-15wEiXsVe9Ng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEs2a6s3=jSb2N7+JHntApW9PWgBCUxV5TP5ej7vLfuR4T6fug@mail.gmail.com> <CAM70yxDJFiv=skuU4=vkos9Zk1JpqQ+6xGGDFj6+Tb6gqCdKFg@mail.gmail.com> <7AF3052A-3B03-4F8A-988D-9F7228001C91@tzi.org> <CAM70yxBhyXTGLegrQVFGu1pxKcZDfd6Q+oYDcoyotSPNAun0oA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM70yxBhyXTGLegrQVFGu1pxKcZDfd6Q+oYDcoyotSPNAun0oA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kris Zyp <kriszyp@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2022 15:36:02 -0600
Message-ID: <CAEs2a6sP0bhJd3JxL15sjYojBfWHON=gmMSYR3esY8aRX-jp4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Emile Cormier <emile.cormier.jr@gmail.com>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_Ams=C3=BCss?= <christian@amsuess.com>, "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/swLHMNuHBxWScZxBAI_opiFHqAw>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Record proposal
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, 01 Apr 2022 21:36:56 -0000

I just wanted to check again on the status of the requested CBOR
records (https://github.com/kriszyp/cbor-records) registration in the
registration table. Now that it is just using tags > 32767, according
to the registry, it shouldn't even require a specification, just a
"first come first serve" request?
Thanks,
Kris

On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:49 AM Emile Cormier <emile.cormier.jr@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 3:35 AM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Without the semantic meaning, there isn't data loss; raw CBOR structures could always be transcoded to JSON or anything else (with conventions for tags and such)
>>
>> That doesn’t work in general: An array with two elements could be a valid data item as well, so you get ambiguity.
>> Tags provide with a clean way to extend the data model.
>
>
> For the record, the "Without the semantic meaning, there isn't data loss..." remark was by Kris, not me.
>
> I think it would have been cleaner for extensions to the data model to be done purely in terms of the core data model. All tags should do is *identify* the new data type and not provide a few extra bytes of storage to that new data type.
>
> Well it seems the genie is out of the bottle in terms of tag ranges being used to "cheaply" store a few bytes of extra information and I'm not going to convince you of putting the genie back in. :-)