Re: [Cbor] 7049bis: The concept of "optional tagging" is not really used in practice #126

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sun, 03 November 2019 21:05 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 C03781200C4 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 13:05:20 -0800 (PST)
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 HvidhGbHDCWx for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 13:05:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E85D1200C1 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 13:05:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.102] (p548DC893.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.200.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 475pNX4nmlzyNM; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 22:05:16 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <8B119642-7D8D-4BEF-AD75-0AC9935BCD7C@island-resort.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 22:05:16 +0100
Cc: Christophe Lohr <christophe.lohr@imt-atlantique.fr>, cbor@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 594507914.173039-54981c0de7b2fe7236bf6b79489d6304
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B86EE13B-12C9-4918-8BE9-5E4BEBF3B779@tzi.org>
References: <92400DAA-A713-4905-A721-34B138E25192@tzi.org> <ed45e995-1858-3169-1be6-0cce5ce37ce3@imt-atlantique.fr> <87889E65-0152-455A-A6B7-C5F336DC97A4@island-resort.com> <CBC1EF6C-FAF5-4AC9-B0DC-C3FD2ED8B88D@tzi.org> <8B119642-7D8D-4BEF-AD75-0AC9935BCD7C@island-resort.com>
To: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/vef-2Usl8On-ieP1TE7vnZ_uDhY>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] 7049bis: The concept of "optional tagging" is not really used in practice #126
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: Sun, 03 Nov 2019 21:05:21 -0000

On Nov 3, 2019, at 22:02, Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>; wrote:
> 
> Would be cool if there were standard CDDL definitions ready for normative reference for all the “tagged” data types defined in 7049 / 7049bis.

Do you mean anything beyond Appendix D of RFC 8610?

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8610#appendix-D

Grüße, Carsten