IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Cbor] Re: CBOR-YANG/SID

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 04 August 2024 18:54 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 DD490C14F680; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 11:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.407
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.407 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qVWK_Bk3tXLe; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 11:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 356AAC14F617; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 11:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 184713899C; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 14:54:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with LMTP id Sdp-RRHUz4iy; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 14:54:33 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1722797673; bh=y7TlQvbCj2Xi4t6oa8r4+He5V3xTtZUVjpX2w/DP+ks=; h=From:To:cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=LriovefScMJydhEX+T9m6IdOk5SxnwLL3xuHwvx217k0TOypZBOAmH5XlXVmWdhAT pPfIPelvNuZ1xKbYoXpJMPh3wGJbAk+aD19ZQyiL/CuLqqBPG0oVNO3x8gsDisf/US s4Jl/hgHiFI1CYzde78tEcB5Ws1cCM743Z/A45wZKlfOt4Mo+Jq564Xep/Y+uD/Wjd XWMXzqTiSBQ+6y2oIhK5wPN4WGPzlBMIVHN/qzI95Cu8qilQBdfvLaeFVhc73D9JBM RvyU3Ptm56XajINeWl6fLxbhG0Oy2Ifoqw+3bFPpGFhAbQ1RxPV/opvxFUuh7N5U9I 5Uz598i8/vzWQ==
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CBB13899B; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 14:54:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 750DC18B; Sun, 4 Aug 2024 14:54:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <7E75452A-79A5-4B8B-9E6A-9CEF1C090D14@tzi.org>
References: <24615.1722628087@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <7E75452A-79A5-4B8B-9E6A-9CEF1C090D14@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
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: Sun, 04 Aug 2024 14:54:33 -0400
Message-ID: <12239.1722797673@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID-Hash: KNARQHI4HYPTGH4AWMAGJSCU75ADFE42
X-Message-ID-Hash: KNARQHI4HYPTGH4AWMAGJSCU75ADFE42
X-MailFrom: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-cbor.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: core@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cbor@ietf.org
Subject: [Cbor] Re: CBOR-YANG/SID
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)" <cbor.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/yTFpPiZOgdsy62q0MsqwkdnuSLQ>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:cbor-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cbor-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cbor-leave@ietf.org>

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    >>
    >> RFC9595 came out on Wednesday. HUZZAH!
    >> It feels like forever.
    >>
    >> Many people have asked why RFC9254 did not say that a YANG date would be
    >> stored as a CBOR TAG 0 or 1.  I actually just assumed, and I think my (ruby)
    >> library did as well that it would be that way, and there was an
    >> interoperation issue discovered.  Oops.
    >> There are other examples.
    >>
    >> My understanding is that people would like to write an RFC9254bis that
    >> application protocols could update to.  I'm all for this.
    >>
    >> I believe that we should do this in *CBOR* WG, rather than CORE WG.

    cb> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bormann-cbor-yang-standin-00.html

    cb> It’s mostly done.  A comment Vancouver was that we should also do
    cb> hex-string.

So, CBOR ought to adopt it then?

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

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status