IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic-07.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 16 December 2021 01:48 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 527F13A07B5; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 17:48:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
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 lr78OMCQUm3U; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 17:48:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D2653A07AF; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 17:48:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D515F38D05; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 20:52:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id bh3Nxm0hE0Cy; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 20:52:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E517938CFC; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 20:52:31 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1639619551; bh=sk5ZP7U1XAmJFhiIm+jIZl8rYaSOR3kbPPpWtAvf7HI=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=tQLA+dNE9B7xf8uP+u8VX2p0H6+lgI0D3ABaSp7bjbSWJNxUradwijCWHnjdJNBqm Eye/VNawY9bpTZyjffwPa81t0KSi+IfQcGmR17b39kIl6IlmUBWjmOyfDVn6XJVBwa /Gy1U7RRTlYJvZF3MKl/hlx0mWJCpLPLPb+udDEEE48AWzs4ym3VbZNutN/WBP54YV IbRqF9Pz6XEYZ4VduU4JLl121pmKPcEPowU6gIozNuqWv7F/neyUDEis8m499zWy1f MKa5KGSoxcMXhqH+KK5dwX+SzOLYDpp5YvmNi7iIZ7Aue6RbY3MSxYl3IsXiytp3/W hc666Ip8dzcZw==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EABE418; Wed, 15 Dec 2021 20:48:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Christian =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ams=FCss?= <christian@amsuess.com>
cc: draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <YboRXwA7k7odlRjI@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
References: <163957657258.13411.7816087918094513382@ietfa.amsl.com> <YboRXwA7k7odlRjI@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
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: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 20:48:19 -0500
Message-ID: <32105.1639619299@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/xaY3C7TQDxFwHbxk935w9RRtrQY>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-file-magic-07.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, 16 Dec 2021 01:48:31 -0000

Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com> wrote:
    > Example or not, I think that the document should be more explicit on the
    > content encoding. As I understand right now, the rules are that

    > * When used with 55799 and 55800, the content encoding is discarded, and
    > the content format needs to be of the CBOR family.

    > * When used with 55801, the content encoding is used to describe the
    > preprocessing of anything after byte 12.

Why do you say preprocessing?

(I'm not convinced 55801 is a good idea for anything except test data for
a CoAP server to return)

    > There's little that can be done about these, but they are IMO worth
    > pointing out when it comes to compatibility. The way any of these are

Yeah, so I see more text here, and I'm starting to think that 55801 is a liability.

--
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