Re: [Cbor] 🔔 WGLC with request for reviews on draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-05

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Marco,

thank you for your review.

> I have only a few minor comments below. Besides that, I think that the document is ready.
> 
> 
> * Both the abstract and Section 1 mention that two extensions are defined, i.e., "dt" and "cri". Can't the "ip" extension also be mentioned?

Yes, it should indeed be mentioned.

Actually, I believe the “cri” extension now needs to move to draft-ietf-core-href, as we now can assume that that specification will trail behind the edn-literals specification.

I will create pull requests that move over cri’’ to -href and instead mention ip’’ in the abstract and introduction of -edn.

> * In Section 3.2, the last example using "commented out" EDN text includes
> 
>    "contract": "Herewith I buy" /.../ "gned: Alice & Bob"
> 
>    Shouldn't this be as below?
> 
>    "contract": "Herewith I buy/.../gned: Alice & Bob"

The purpose of the example was to show “commented out” ellipses, i.e., ellipses that will be entirely invisible in any processing by CI etc.
The /comment/ syntax works inside h’’ byte strings (which do not allow a ‘/‘ otherwise), but not inside in text strings (which do, so the /.../ becomes part of the text string); that’s why the example split the text string into a concatenated text string (Appendix G.4 of RFC 8610) and put the ellipsis into a comment that works in the whitespace between the halfs of the concatenated text string.

Grüße, Carsten

> On 2023-10-21 10:46, Christian Amsüss wrote:
>> Hello CBOR group,
>> 
>> this mail announces the Working Group Last Call on edn-literals[1],
>> which will end at the Monday of IETF 118 (2023-11-06), in parallel with
>> the WGLC on draft-ietf-cbor-update-8610-grammar.
>> 
>> Note that this document has evolved from merely adding application
>> oriented literals (`dt'2023-01-01'`) to also formalizing diagnostic
>> notation in ABNF form, filling several gaps and defining a media type
>> for it.
>> 
>> While this document has been discussed during interims, all the mailing
>> list discussion on it has been sparse and dates to whenit was only about
>> application oriented literals, so: Please have a look at the latest
>> version. The author was considerate enough to pack the 10 pages of ABNF
>> details into an appendix, leaving the rest at just 12 screen pages
>> (thereof 4 IANA considerations). While far be it for me to suggest
>> skimping on IANA considerations and appendix review, those who want to
>> review this with a more high-level mindset will find those early pages
>> to be most relevant to them -- and both kinds of reviews would be very
>> welcome.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Christian
>> 
>> [1]: 
>> https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7Caf92e1297c384a79560208dbd21243a4%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638334748107781311%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LAgrzztbHS22AI6RBSz6eMQmq8UQbwgwoSMbHBEQ%2Feg%3D&reserved=0
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Marco Tiloca
> Ph.D., Senior Researcher
> 
> Phone: [phone]
> 
> RISE Research Institutes of Sweden AB
> Box 1263
> 164 29 Kista (Sweden)
> 
> Division: Digital Systems
> Department: Computer Science
> Unit: Cybersecurity
> 
> 
> https://www.ri.se
> <OpenPGP_0xEE2664B40E58DA43.asc>
> 
>