[Cbor] (concluding) CBOR EDN vs. Clojure EDN (draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals)
Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com> Sun, 21 July 2024 17:14 UTC
Return-Path: <christian@amsuess.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 A197AC14F6E4 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jul 2024 10:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01] 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 kUzXbyr28uPU for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jul 2024 10:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.akis.at (smtp.akis.at [IPv6:2a02:b18:500:a515::f455]) (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 B9273C14F603 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jul 2024 10:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com ([IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010:a800:ff:fede:b1bd]) by smtp.akis.at (8.17.2/8.17.2) with ESMTPS id 46LHEPjC011062 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 21 Jul 2024 19:14:25 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from christian@amsuess.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: smtp.akis.at: Host [IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010:a800:ff:fede:b1bd] claimed to be poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com
Received: from poseidon-mailbox.amsuess.com (hermes.lan [10.13.13.254]) by poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD8823F416; Sun, 21 Jul 2024 19:14:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hephaistos.amsuess.com (unknown [IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010:da06:4d02:155c:71fb]) by poseidon-mailbox.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A153838853; Sun, 21 Jul 2024 19:14:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (nullmailer pid 17310 invoked by uid 1000); Sun, 21 Jul 2024 17:14:24 -0000
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 19:14:24 +0200
From: Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Message-ID: <Zp1B8OI84qumPaNu@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
References: <ZpxTKBLOeEVn2USF@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <F8EEB53F-4672-4B75-B744-74373000D97B@tzi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rhz7e6Y5Abz4sD4J"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <F8EEB53F-4672-4B75-B744-74373000D97B@tzi.org>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.86
Message-ID-Hash: LHFCCO2TGXXX4OSJBTLSFGH3XAB7Z7QU
X-Message-ID-Hash: LHFCCO2TGXXX4OSJBTLSFGH3XAB7Z7QU
X-MailFrom: christian@amsuess.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-cbor.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: CBOR <cbor@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Cbor] (concluding) CBOR EDN vs. Clojure EDN (draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals)
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)" <cbor.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/tp_0-yZOkqjHaRzbJfuFhJmq5V0>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:cbor-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cbor-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cbor-leave@ietf.org>
On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 02:50:07AM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote: > But we did commit to EDN as an abbreviation in RFC 8610, about five years ago (plus). Well, that was building on the original DN, and we're extending again, so we're not bound to that commitment (FWIW it could be extended extended diagnostic notation ;-), but nonetheless: Thanks for all your quick feedback, my concern that we're running into this collision undiscussed is addressed, we seem to concurr that (CBOR) EDN is the name to keep, so let's not stall this any further. BR c -- There's always a bigger fish. -- Qui-Gon Jinn
- [Cbor] CBOR EDN vs. Clojure EDN (draft-ietf-cbor-… Christian Amsüss
- [Cbor] Re: CBOR EDN vs. Clojure EDN (draft-ietf-c… Carsten Bormann
- [Cbor] (concluding) CBOR EDN vs. Clojure EDN (dra… Christian Amsüss
- [Cbor] Re: CBOR EDN vs. Clojure EDN (draft-ietf-c… Rohan Mahy
- [Cbor] Re: CBOR EDN vs. Clojure EDN (draft-ietf-c… A.J. Stein