IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] Tagging requirement

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 18 August 2020 21:31 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 B053E3A0CFC for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 GvfanEvbSrZq for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF9D13A0F30 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 14:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1DF7389B3; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:10:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 8o-7opi9V6V8; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:10:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D52F2389B2; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:10:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7DA465A; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:30:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
cc: cbor@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <209669F1-8F6D-4D80-B7B0-38116BE7A66E@tzi.org>
References: <5F695632-CF27-40FF-BC23-E731AAA95771@island-resort.com> <895A3DF8-DF11-479F-9DC6-9EF98465A7E0@tzi.org> <D8A304BA-897A-46D2-9B67-4FF458883478@island-resort.com> <1FC978C4-5EB5-42D9-B522-28D72FDCA5B9@tzi.org> <23965.1597777439@localhost> <209669F1-8F6D-4D80-B7B0-38116BE7A66E@tzi.org>
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
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:30:55 -0400
Message-ID: <26830.1597786255@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/uNJDVr7wo58rxrqILlAGmQSYS7A>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Tagging requirement
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: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 21:31:06 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    > On 2020-08-18, at 21:03, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    >>
    >> Carsten, some year ago we had a lot of discussion when doing 7049bis about
    >> what would be described in 7049bis, and what belonged in the Protocol using
    >> document.
    >>
    >> I think that many of Laurence's questions fall into this.
    >> I wonder if we need either:
    >>
    >> 1) a guide to writing CBOR applicability statements.

    > I’m not sure I’m parsing this correctly — writing CBOR applicability statements?
    > What do we need an applicability statement for and why would we be writing many of them?

No, it is about how, when doing EAT, or DOTS, or GRASP, or CoSWID, ...
how are we applying CBOR.

    >> 2) a worked out example.

    > I think we have about 30 :-)

    > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7049/referencedby/
    > (This is slightly confused — it thinks that RFC 8392 has an informative
    > reference to 7049, and I’m sure the heuristics failed in other places.)

Yes.
But, if I wanted to tell someone which one to use, which one would I use?
There are many which are not useful.

    >> Probably both.
    >> While a lot of the more normative advice all through 7049bis, it might be too
    >> diffuse to apply quickly.
    >>
    >> I think CDDL can be used to clarify things, but it might be that some of
    >> us need the specific ways beat over our heads.

    > I think some of the material about tags could go into notable-tags.
    > But maybe we do need a tutorial document.

Yes, it's a tutorial about writing a document that references CBOR.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email