[Cbor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8610 (6543)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 14 April 2021 00:13 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.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 65D3E3A0C59 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 kEFzg25dQZax for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0CBD3A0C4E for <cbor@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id EE85DF40791; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
To: henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de, christoph.vigano@uni-bremen.de, cabo@tzi.org, superuser@gmail.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, barryleiba@computer.org, christian@amsuess.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: smbarte2@illinois.edu, cbor@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20210414001322.EE85DF40791@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:13:22 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/t3RR6dbywM5KM7UeWtArJPFem3M>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 02:21:06 -0700
Subject: [Cbor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8610 (6543)
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: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 00:13:42 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8610, "Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and JSON Data Structures". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6543 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Sean Bartell <smbarte2@illinois.edu> Section: B Original Text ------------- bytes = [bsqual] %x27 *BCHAR %x27 BCHAR = %x20-26 / %x28-5B / %x5D-10FFFD / SESC / CRLF Corrected Text -------------- bytes = %x27 *BCHAR %x27 / bsqual %x27 *QCHAR %x27 BCHAR = %x20-26 / %x28-5B / %x5D-10FFFD / SESC / CRLF QCHAR = DIGIT / ALPHA / "+" / "/" / "-" / "_" / "=" / WS Notes ----- Section 3.1 states that comments are allowed in prefixed byte strings. This correction explicitly uses WS (which includes comments) in the rule for prefixed byte strings. Although the original ABNF would allow *most* comments, it would prohibit comments including a single quote, or comments with a backslash at the end of the line. My correction allows prefixed byte strings to use every hex and base64 character. Alternatively, the ABNF could be narrowed down using separate rules for hex and base64, or it could be broadened to allow other characters. The ultimate effect would be the same regardless. Note that both the original and corrected ABNF allow CRLF in unprefixed bytestrings. (Note: Unlike my previous two errata, which affected unprefixed byte strings, this one affects prefixed byte strings.) Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC8610 (draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-08) -------------------------------------- Title : Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and JSON Data Structures Publication Date : June 2019 Author(s) : H. Birkholz, C. Vigano, C. Bormann Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions Area : Applications and Real-Time Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Cbor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8610 (6543) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Cbor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8610 (6… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Cbor] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8610 (6… Carsten Bormann