Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic-06.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 17 November 2021 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 A1E783A0E77 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 10:50:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
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 BQ8WaOyZerqV for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 10:50:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5DD43A0E78 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 10:50:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7C9718029 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 13:52:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id tgLtnb0-gk_0 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 13:52:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40CE91800C for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 13:52:27 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1637175147; bh=6yfsk58cvRjhp5lcRJrYdaD86mZqdM2+ZIvsF+FcsEw=; h=From:to:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=yNMZIaxMLahuqjZguU+GLKlOv0GhLF2U7vqRr5xwGJWvFYXTbcTu3+Xg3P7cNLNeI e9zVzLkDtAbbtPIf7RP9HZu65ov6VuRN9FR+BqkNk7DU3lOY4kk5tBI8kxAt9FgvII qkHGifX4kVNZZ/MVguGfhunD2fdpWFbk3cmBaoDZ0svGmzhifN2QzR7ZY+oSqHJduN PCe1pRxsHPmPLAoJE3HGjBA4AxD09ULCzZ0zzd6xlLOHbYxYVhO0OdeLItL1QMTtBt OGRuiUwpdCtTCES2TngkWVUSmL05cJbUvCavedJbOPR7kGs1VdTUiT1zbcVoxo4/cq wZcFWH1Ahjmjg==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C24A8D5 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Nov 2021 13:50:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
to: cbor@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <YYKYIzFFIGWVqNK8@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
References: <163484662604.2786.6905890868276647458@ietfa.amsl.com> <YYKYIzFFIGWVqNK8@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
X-Attribution: mcr
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 13:50:01 -0500
Message-ID: <21617.1637175001@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/uAzS_w6KADyqPFhEqG5DC5FirRY>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic-06.txt
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, 17 Nov 2021 18:50:12 -0000

I think that we have now resolved (in the WG meeting) the situation about
magic numbers for all Content-Formats vs non-CBOR, but I'm unclear what the
resolution exactly was in the end.  (cbor WG vs another WG conflict too)






--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide