IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] BCP document for CBOR

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 29 August 2019 19:56 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 DD9A6120C21 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 12:56:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 7iuGk6BOavEi for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 12:56:15 -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 0AF2B120B46 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 12:56:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3911C3808A; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:55:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2638BD8C; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:56:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
cc: cbor@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <01d401d55dd6$e5ee1e70$b1ca5b50$@augustcellars.com>
References: <01d401d55dd6$e5ee1e70$b1ca5b50$@augustcellars.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:56:13 -0400
Message-ID: <32321.1567108573@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/up72V9vz0PmC2oiRXMxo_JEU7So>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] BCP document for CBOR
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: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 19:56:18 -0000

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:
    > During the interim call today, as Carsten was going through the set of open
    > issues, it dawned on me that a good number of the issues that he was
    > covering today might be better placed in a BCP document rather than in the
    > CBOR standard.

I think that we actually talked about this at one time before.
This was around the question about whether we optimized for limited ability
encoders (by not always using the most efficient encoding), or limited
ability decoders (by limiting the number of different encodings used).

It was some kind of Design Considerations for Protocols using CBOR.
I thought it was a good idea.  It would provide a number of different ways to
do things (a palette), and then suggest that other uses say which one
"colour" they are using.

    > What do other people in the WG think of this proposal?

    > If the proposal were to be adopted, are there people who are interested in
    > writing/editing the document?

I think that it's a good idea.
I would review and contribute, but I couldn't lead.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email