IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] Reviews and shepherd for draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 15 April 2024 18:27 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 E4053C14CEFD; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:27:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pk-zTVtfN_La; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F6DAC14CF1A; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 11:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p5089a3d9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.163.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4VJFy43rHYzDCcJ; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:27:08 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.500.171.1.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <3DCB7547-835B-4C44-B080-C4A561AA4E62@island-resort.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:26:57 +0200
Cc: Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com>, "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D83FEE94-C843-493B-8120-ACB0D81574A8@tzi.org>
References: <ZeMG7tpfKLyf3aSz@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <ZhPIC9DyzcpyhjPI@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <3FECD79D-C19A-4F04-BF04-A39AC4962C2D@island-resort.com> <31FEFB97-87CD-4B6D-86A7-06CBE12D51E8@tzi.org> <EF87DF03-8483-45DD-AA80-8E885BB78F75@island-resort.com> <824851A4-BB83-400A-BBBE-2BFA5E6A4D60@tzi.org> <3F4D3A40-B55D-4625-8684-09915B13B036@tzi.org> <C99FB4A9-1BCD-427E-8107-9EC52F809742@island-resort.com> <C3AABC79-14C6-45BB-888C-6B7166C7FD67@tzi.org> <3DCB7547-835B-4C44-B080-C4A561AA4E62@island-resort.com>
To: "lgl island-resort.com" <lgl@island-resort.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.500.171.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/tgOdoD8QdEP9kteXjy_bLmr1oY8>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Reviews and shepherd for draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-more-control
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:27:17 -0000

Hi Laurence,

> On 15. Apr 2024, at 20:19, lgl island-resort.com <lgl@island-resort.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Carsten,
> 
> Appreciate the fix and rapid turnaround. 
> 
> I’d like to ask that the draft explicitly say that .b4u and .b4c accept only their respective alphabets.
> 
> - RFC 4648 only really says how to encode, not what decoders should do
> - B64 decoders out there widely accept both; What .b64u and .b64c do here is far from the norm (but I like it)
> - This draft is a specification that we expect other cddl tool implementors to follow so it should be clear
> 
> It would also be helpful for CDDL-using document authors like me to not have to go read and interpret RFC 4648.

Sounds good.

I won’t get to addressing this in the next 24 hours, so I captured it here:
https://github.com/cbor-wg/cddl-more-control/issues/4

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email