IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] What's your opinion of using CDDL to simultaneously define CBOR and JSON?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 08 September 2021 18:48 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 EA7453A3276 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 11:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 sd79HrVujsuc for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 11:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
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 C71983A3271 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 11:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443B739873; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:54:31 -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 Dgt1_FYjLUXA; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:54:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1B739872; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:54:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 705077B; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:48:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>, cbor@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <51537C68-F495-4750-9376-A637BD0E78DD@island-resort.com>
References: <51537C68-F495-4750-9376-A637BD0E78DD@island-resort.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, 08 Sep 2021 14:48:01 -0400
Message-ID: <19710.1631126881@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/yl-pf8TXCJCaPU6jvs2bfivelbA>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] What's your opinion of using CDDL to simultaneously define CBOR and JSON?
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: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 18:48:15 -0000

Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> wrote:
    > Right now, the EAT draft is using CDDL to simultaneously define the EAT
    > protocol such that it can be encoded in either CBOR or JSON. This also
    > gives transcoding of the protocol between CBOR and JSON which is useful
    > at the Verifier. There is also some interest in expanding to
    > ASN.1. That seems doable. Then maybe on to YANG, but that seems harder.

Sorry to nit-pick, but expanding to *DER* (or BER) would be easy.

Rewriting the CDDL in ASN.1 serves no purpose in my opinion.
It would be an entirely new spec.

Similiarly, rewriting to YANG is meaningless.
YANG serializes to CBOR, JSON, XML and other stuff.
Serializing the CDDL to XML might be interesting to someone.
(not met)

    > This kind of all started when CWT was created out of JWT, but that was
    > all before CDDL. If we set out to define JWT plus CWT today from
    > scratch, would we use CDDL?

JWT/CWT would have been described in CDDL.
And we can describe it today in CDDL.
I imagine that if we do new iterations of documents may include CDDL for
this.

--
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