Re: [Cbor] [Cacao] Public Comment for CACAO Draft

[Bret Jordan <[e-mail]>]

Perhaps I can work on an ID for this and submit it to the CBOR working
group? We have done very similar things in STIX and TAXII as well. So it
would be good for me to take all the content I have written and done for
all three of this specifications (STIX, TAXII, and CACAO) and put them
together in a single ID that you and others can help with and comb through
with a fine tooth comb.  Does that seem reasonable to you?

Thanks,
Bret
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can
not be unscrambled is an egg."


On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 4:45 PM Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Bret,
>
> On 2020-12-15, at 21:38, Bret Jordan <bret.jordan=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Or can we get a working group for this kind of work.
>
> I would consider a document that defines vocabulary like this to be a good
> component for CDDL, which the CBOR WG already is chartered to evolve.  A
> bit like a modern version of the good parts of part 2 of WSD [1], which is
> probably still the best document of that kind that we have.
>
> (Clearly, I’m not suggesting that CACAO wait for this to spring up, I just
> see the CACAO document as another item to look at that motivates finally
> doing this.)
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> [1]:
> https://clicktime.symantec.com/3SRZL7zFYPHB8G5QV1wAVd27Vc?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fxmlschema-2%2F
>
> (Oh, and the difference between a 54-bit two's-complement signed integer
> and an I-JSON integer is that the former includes an INT54_MIN of -2**53,
> while the latter doesn’t (*), which you correctly copied from I-JSON —
> int54 may be vernacular for the latter, but this is off-by-one.  This
> little factoid is pretty much inconsequential (**) for CACAO, but a
> document like the above would get this detail right.)
>
> (*) because it actually does include both +0 and -0.
> (**) INT54_MIN *can* be represented in the typical JSON implementation
> number systems that I-JSON was accommodating, as can be 2**53 — it’s just
> no longer uniquely distinguishable from INT54_MIN-1 or 2**53+1.  So this
> little mistake is even more innocuous.
>
> --
> Cacao mailing list
> [e-mail]
>
> https://clicktime.symantec.com/3FbpPgtTsB92u5j6v6Zq9827Vc?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcacao
>

-- 
This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted 
with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy 
laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are 
not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the 
e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of 
this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, 
please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and 
destroy any printed copy of it.