IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] 🔔 Confirmation call for Working Group Adoption for draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 20 July 2017 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 A6E65129ADD for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:16:59 -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] 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 A7ADAdhiqmqL for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:16:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (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 BDF6013146C for <cbor@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.201.11]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v6KEGqTT009129; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:16:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from dhcp-808c.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-808c.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.128.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3xCwv860KLz3Z9y; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:16:52 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <6B06F9C0-8002-4FB6-AF01-8C049C0FE7BB@seantek.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:16:52 +0200
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 522253011.963885-5e589b01f92f1e4f788c9599e0f95777
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C14E4B01-C496-458B-9458-A131B36CCA8A@tzi.org>
References: <HE1PR0701MB25390DA8E0A1BEDE50EF206D98D40@HE1PR0701MB2539.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <2FBE4C5B-2661-437A-883F-4F6E7FFBF204@seantek.com> <432f706c-dfab-0dd9-60c5-f761a1a95f67@gmail.com> <6B06F9C0-8002-4FB6-AF01-8C049C0FE7BB@seantek.com>
To: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/v1zx1ZugjEDSX6tAH1z5p0PQ5D4>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] 🔔 Confirmation call for Working Group Adoption for draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 20 Jul 2017 14:17:03 -0000

On Jul 20, 2017, at 16:03, Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com> wrote:
> 
> For now, you can precisely define your CBOR message format using prose.

The point of creating this WG and chartering it with completing the CDDL spec was that that frustrating exercise shall no longer be needed, just as ABNF has solved the same problem for textual protocols.

After reading your message, I still have no idea why you don’t want us to do this.

(Re the one substantive comment about PCRE: That family of languages is definitely more well-defined than the family known as "English language”.  If you think we need to point a spec, we can always use ECMA 262; I don’t think we need all of PCRE.  We could also remove the .regexp control, but I think it is too useful to do that.  We maybe should add a warning that specifiers should avoid the weird ends of PCRE.  None of this is relevant to the question at hand, WG adoption.)

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email