Re: [Cbor] 🔔 WGLC on draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-02

Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de> Fri, 15 January 2021 12:40 UTC

Return-Path: <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
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 2AC253A0C64 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 04:40:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.481
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.481 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 GQPOLFxLB13a for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 04:40:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-edgeKA24.fraunhofer.de (mail-edgeka24.fraunhofer.de [153.96.1.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71B2F3A0C66 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 04:40:29 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2EuCgAUjAFg/xoHYZliHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQFAgU+DIYE5CoQ1iQSGM4FqCCUDnDQJCwEBAQEBAQEBAQkYDwY?= =?us-ascii?q?CBAEBAoRIAoFvASU4EwIQAQEGAQEBAQEGBAIChk4Mg1WBBwEBAQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEWAkNVEgEBHgEBAQMBASEPAQU2GwkCGAICJgICJyAQBg0GAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BgyIBgwUFC5MwnAiBMoRAAQMCAQ1BRIMvgUOBDiqGdYIvhA8mD4FNP4ERJww?= =?us-ascii?q?DgmM+gl0BAQEBAQEVhF6CYASDJAQiEBEOAhQOOQsLAh0yHx4DDh9BknOkfCw?= =?us-ascii?q?HgWiBEoEXBQuIB5ItBQofgyqBMIh/hS8GK48vliCJE5FthGyBbYF7TSQuIYI?= =?us-ascii?q?1AQEyCQo9FwINji0XiGKFRXMCATQCBgEJAQEDCQF7ingBgRABAQ?=
X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A2EuCgAUjAFg/xoHYZliHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQFAg?= =?us-ascii?q?U+DIYE5CoQ1iQSGM4FqCCUDnDQJCwEBAQEBAQEBAQkYDwYCBAEBAoRIAoFvA?= =?us-ascii?q?SU4EwIQAQEGAQEBAQEGBAIChk4Mg1WBBwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEWA?= =?us-ascii?q?kNVEgEBHgEBAQMBASEPAQU2GwkCGAICJgICJyAQBg0GAgEBgyIBgwUFC5Mwn?= =?us-ascii?q?AiBMoRAAQMCAQ1BRIMvgUOBDiqGdYIvhA8mD4FNP4ERJwwDgmM+gl0BAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEVhF6CYASDJAQiEBEOAhQOOQsLAh0yHx4DDh9BknOkfCwHgWiBEoEXBQuIB?= =?us-ascii?q?5ItBQofgyqBMIh/hS8GK48vliCJE5FthGyBbYF7TSQuIYI1AQEyCQo9FwINj?= =?us-ascii?q?i0XiGKFRXMCATQCBgEJAQEDCQF7ingBgRABAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,349,1602540000"; d="scan'208";a="27528841"
Received: from mail-mtas26.fraunhofer.de ([153.97.7.26]) by mail-edgeKA24.fraunhofer.de with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Jan 2021 13:40:25 +0100
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BSBwDeiwFg/wpIDI1iHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQFAgU+CK3ZaMC8KhDWJBIYygWoIJQOcPQsBAwEBAQEBCRgPBgI?= =?us-ascii?q?EAQGESgKBbQIlOBMCEAEBBQEBAQIBBgRxhWEMhXQBAQQBASEPAQU2GwkCGAI?= =?us-ascii?q?CJgICJyAQBg0GAgEBgyIBgwoLky6cCIEyhEABAwIBDUFEgy+BQ4EOKoZ1gi+?= =?us-ascii?q?EDyYPgU0/gREnDAOCYz6CXQEBAQEBARWEXoJgBIMkBCIQEQ4CFA45CwsCHTI?= =?us-ascii?q?fHgMOH0GSc6R8LAeBaIESgRcFC4gHki0FCh+DKoEwiH+FLwYrjy+WIIkTkW2?= =?us-ascii?q?EbIFtI4FXTSQuIYI1AQEyCQo9FwINji0XiGKFRUIxAgE0AgYBCQEBAwkBe4p?= =?us-ascii?q?4AYEQAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,349,1602540000"; d="scan'208";a="133648004"
Received: from ksapp01.sit.fraunhofer.de ([141.12.72.10]) by mail-mtaS26.fraunhofer.de with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Jan 2021 13:40:22 +0100
Received: from ksapp01.sit.fraunhofer.de (mail.sit.fraunhofer.de [141.12.84.171]) by ksapp01.sit.fraunhofer.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E82180277 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:40:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.16.50] (79.206.145.24) by mail.sit.fraunhofer.de (141.12.84.171) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.487.0; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:40:21 +0100
To: <cbor@ietf.org>
References: <37C21414-561B-47EA-9DCD-9166B2F8FD46@ericsson.com>
From: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Message-ID: <68298cbd-8c59-8856-f07a-76812e179609@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:40:20 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <37C21414-561B-47EA-9DCD-9166B2F8FD46@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [79.206.145.24]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/uPzlLBFo9tDnKvZ8HusoX4-QQh8>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] =?utf-8?q?=F0=9F=94=94_WGLC_on_draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-0?= =?utf-8?q?2?=
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: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 12:40:35 -0000

Hi chairs,
hi CBOR WG,

I am so sorry that I missed to reply to this call. In fact, it is 
essential to improve existing work on large component manifests 
represented in CBOR.

I've read the I-D and am in strong favor of progressing of progressing 
this work.

Viele Grüße,

Henk

On 15.12.20 23:37, Francesca Palombini wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> The WGLC has officially ended, but I'd appreciate a couple more eyes on this, so if you have the time, please take a look. Also, here is my shepherd review. There is one point where I'd like to get the authors and the WG's opinion, see the first point below.
> 
> * I am not sure (and please correct me if I am wrong!) there ever was a conclusion to Jim's comment about not seeing the necessity of going below one layer for maps and arrays: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/5lj35zvO85Yu2tVO_Fw__KWLadc/  - this was discussed at an interim: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2020-cbor-14/materials/minutes-interim-2020-cbor-14-202009021700-00.txt  And I see the text Jim referred to was clarified, but as shepherd I'd like to see more opinions on this point: anybody else seeing a problem with Carsten's point of "if you don't need all bstr tagged, don't use the tag on the map/array" ? Anybody agrees with Jim and would rather this being a 1-level tag?
> 
> * Update references to RFC 8949
> 
> * normative references X.660, X.680 and X.690 are missing links
> 
> * add a reference to IANA PEN registry
> 
> "the first byte of each SDNV cannot be 0x80 (which would be a
>     leading zero in SDNV's base-128 arithmetic)."
> 
> "this requirement requires
>        expressing the integer values in their shortest form, with no
>        leading zeroes"
> 
> * I would suggest reversing this sentence: "the first byte cannot be a leading zero in SDNV's base-128 arithmetic, so it cannot take value 0x80", possibly mentioning the requirement on the integer values being expressed in their shortest form. By the way, does this requirement comes from BER OID rules? Can you add some reference to where this is specified?
> 
> "except for the last byte, where it must be
>     unset"
> 
> * either replace "must" with "is" or with "MUST" (I would suggest is, because the normative MUST before covers the requirement already)
> 
> "its first byte" and "its last byte"
> 
> * I would replace "its" by "the tag's" for clarity.
> 
> * It seems to me that this document could benefit from a more expanded terminology section. In particular, I would quickly summarize the terms used from X.690 - e.g. arc - and SDNV.
> 
> * Some introductory text for the examples in Section 3 would have been good.
> 
> * I am a bit unsure about the reasoning behind section 4 "Discussion". Is this not background? Then in my opinion it would fit better in section 2.
> 
> * I would have merged section 3 and 6 in one section "Examples"
> 
> 
> Francesca
> 
> On 29/10/2020, 10:57, "CBOR on behalf of Francesca Palombini" <cbor-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of francesca.palombini=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
>      CBOR wg,
> 
>      This starts a two weeks WG last call on https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-02 , ending on *Thursday, 12th November*.
> 
>      Please send inputs to the mailing list that you have read the document and do or do not feel it is ready to progress, along with any issues that you believe need to be dealt with.
> 
>      We will discuss any open issues we’ve gotten during our WG meeting at IETF109 scheduled for Thursday, 19 November.
> 
>      CBOR Chair
>      Francesca
> 
>      On 28/10/2020, 18:44, "CBOR on behalf of internet-drafts@ietf.org" <cbor-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>          A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>          This draft is a work item of the Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions WG of the IETF.
> 
>                  Title           : Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Object Identifiers
>                  Authors         : Carsten Bormann
>                                    Sean Leonard
>          	Filename        : draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-02.txt
>          	Pages           : 14
>          	Date            : 2020-10-28
> 
>          Abstract:
>             The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, draft-ietf-cbor-
>             7049bis) is a data format whose design goals include the possibility
>             of extremely small code size, fairly small message size, and
>             extensibility without the need for version negotiation.
> 
>             The present document defines CBOR tags for object identifiers (OIDs).
>             It is intended as the reference document for the IANA registration of
>             the CBOR tags so defined.
> 
> 
>          The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>          https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid/
> 
>          There is also an HTML version available at:
>          https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-02.html
> 
>          A diff from the previous version is available at:
>          https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-02
> 
> 
>          Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>          until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
>          Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>          ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> 
>          _______________________________________________
>          CBOR mailing list
>          CBOR@ietf.org
>          https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
> 
>      _______________________________________________
>      CBOR mailing list
>      CBOR@ietf.org
>      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
>