IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] Going forward on draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-01.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 29 October 2020 12:51 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 1E6053A09F5 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 05:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FSL_BULK_SIG=0.001, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=1.886, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.922, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 N3Rn6S3TqhYa for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 05:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D9A53A09DA for <cbor@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 05:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2993389DB; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 08:58:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id V95f_2LKQA3Q; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 08:58:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3382389D9; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 08:58:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6F059A; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 08:51:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
cc: cbor@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <FB5123AF-6651-4F62-8285-0FE73D4F5686@tzi.org>
References: <160149084739.1101.17252607624012498913@ietfa.amsl.com> <FB5123AF-6651-4F62-8285-0FE73D4F5686@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
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-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 08:51:17 -0400
Message-ID: <23769.1603975877@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/xIwi_O7_yIuyQwCgVCroFi-PYLM>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Going forward on draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-01.txt
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 Oct 2020 12:51:22 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    > What is left to do is:

    > — tick off and delete the yellow editors’ comment at the end of Section 5:
    > https://raw.githack.com/cbor-wg/cbor-oid/master/draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid.html#name-tag-factoring-with-oid-arra
    > — i.e., agree that we now have reached the right level of complexity
    > here.

    > — discuss whether we need the detail in https://raw.githack.com/cbor-wg/cbor-oid/master/draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid.html#section-9.1 — conversion between BER and dotted decimal is not exactly the focus of this draft any longer, and the third paragraph of Section 9 (https://raw.githack.com/cbor-wg/cbor-oid/master/draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid.html#section-9-3) already contains a good warning about this.

    > We could discuss this later today in the interim, generate a -02 with the above (and a few editorial) changes, and go for WGLC (which should get us any further reviews we need).

I think that your -02 update broke the link that included the "yellow
editors' comment" above.

Reading the diff, I think you acted on these already, and I'm good with that.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email