From nobody Fri May 5 01:18:14 2023 Return-Path: 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 8D14AC151557 for ; Fri, 5 May 2023 01:18:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.094 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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=gmail.com 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 NmADOMPmnPh8 for ; Fri, 5 May 2023 01:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ot1-x329.google.com (mail-ot1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::329]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECA63C151556 for ; Fri, 5 May 2023 01:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x329.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-6a5f21a0604so990135a34.2 for ; Fri, 05 May 2023 01:18:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1683274689; x=1685866689; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=lEY4WorLqLYH7xsQIT2vRfGIlQYsLBepO/J2X7yl0pg=; b=qJ5fPh0MfOROg9IJPeROdRBGrlrwhkhxBarkgvgr1D+BrH+Y0RiMoMUo1mUFjoNJYS zalYGLm7ytcF51fV3PGlO7lqaiZnNTByPj7hThcofrpr7zoGvTVR+PJAFdOjbRAWo+Qh Cs1fnuHjogNA4bfC9yUpUq0AUZ0fdnM6vTyuaYHrbxs5+SO2sBd1xTLG3WathAFZ7R2m TCECoZdKCRjn9nGnbEOT8SwZM+rWJgtQ8ysWIdetsBLNBcWUSzkn4T0WVt8twKH96It8 HvANqmAOIDWAOUTgWJCS3zMtE1aLECO02iHU3yKHO5alfWdzU05VYcoO3FH1XR4elNar ddbg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683274689; x=1685866689; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=lEY4WorLqLYH7xsQIT2vRfGIlQYsLBepO/J2X7yl0pg=; b=WwscNo7v8Yp0fHRE8On+6Tcp3N0RyiGr7VwACbWjD101lgwSWsuRRRHrlo8QleYCLW sTD53I115sNUgAwJ8pemqgNqyRKHpHD1uPimZ4+MIR5r6FZCWsN+Alwf/y9CUoBrwHSW T3UBKZp/xSNCXQk2a/Iy8sIH2ylcTcipg+NuyjrO9AFntV+kOVyuSL7xDfNqqr1Qe7Yk emdBEQN4WlHPxMxFnWOdLFvnpLgH28YZfMZcup2k6P9fpXIOPyk2tzVtSCgX0rZ+znPK vL9zxVapMfRCEuG5Z55kNdH25cTdTX5F0q9IwEZ/V/xRKnRQH2VFckFX0e5rcHnGtdSy U8uQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDyKkec7QTG8ia2Rd1pons4auM0wm+5O+Q0lnEWrzC7HQuEeMJJu 357pcDbV8VM27cX6UFnDpkliCzggvANtYk5A8+JRvfXj X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4Dc6FmbrVe0dwzh216+oRlArZyGfNPezDxBZAtvF1FJ99bxD0JAV872DmMmH8rxLoChkS07RKYOodQbsyk+wc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:b2c:b0:38e:4642:b777 with SMTP id t12-20020a0568080b2c00b0038e4642b777mr165080oij.48.1683274689189; Fri, 05 May 2023 01:18:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8233a692-df84-f093-96bf-fe99c03adfc5@gmail.com> <31111796-3CF7-4F8F-A805-4CBE1124E9D8@tzi.org> <83052D85-36BE-45AA-81EA-A46068B89D95@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: <83052D85-36BE-45AA-81EA-A46068B89D95@tzi.org> From: Anders Rundgren Date: Fri, 5 May 2023 10:17:58 +0200 Message-ID: To: Carsten Bormann Cc: cbor@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e89cab05faededeb" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949 X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 08:18:13 -0000 --000000000000e89cab05faededeb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable for dCBOR.... On Fri, May 5, 2023, 09:43 Carsten Bormann wrote: > On 2023-05-05, at 09:27, Anders Rundgren > wrote: > > > > https://cbor.me produces CBOR data items like 0xf9c400 that are > rejected by applications building on > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mcnally-deterministic-cbor-01.html#= name-reduction-of-floating-point > > I think that for any application, you can find things that you can type > into cbor.me that this application will reject. > > > Still both solutions claim to be RFC compliant. > > The RFC does not cover applications. Not encoding integral floating poin= t > numbers is, from a CBOR point of view, an application rule. > > > So the question is simply: is a CBOR interoperability profile a suitabl= e > work item for the CBOR WG, or should it preferably be taken to OASIS, ETS= I, > or the W3C? > > Now you are starting to make thinly vailed threats. > I will not respond to those. > > I have been quite receptive for picking up the application rules in > draft-mcnally-deterministic-cbor as a CBOR work item. > You just need to stop thinking of them as changing CBOR. > > > The target for an interoperability profile are the 80-90% of all > developers working with enterprise systems as well as open standards for > banking and similar. > > The point here is =E2=80=9Can interoperability profile=E2=80=9D. > You could define many, and defining one for fintech etc. is fine =E2=80= =94 it just > isn=E2=80=99t a =E2=80=9CCBOR interoperability profile=E2=80=9D, but a = =E2=80=9Chow is our specific set of > applications going to use CBOR=E2=80=9D profile. > > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > > --000000000000e89cab05faededeb Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
for dCBOR....

On Fri, May 5, 2023, 09:43 Carsten Bormann &= lt;cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
On 2023-05-05, at 09:27, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> https://cbor.me produces CBOR data items like 0xf9c400 that are r= ejected by applications building on https://www.ietf.org/ar= chive/id/draft-mcnally-deterministic-cbor-01.html#name-reduction-of-floatin= g-point

I think that for any application, you can find things that you can type int= o cbor.me that this application will reject.

> Still both solutions claim to be RFC compliant.

The RFC does not cover applications.=C2=A0 Not encoding integral floating p= oint numbers is, from a CBOR point of view, an application rule.

> So the question is simply: is a CBOR interoperability profile a suitab= le work item for the CBOR WG, or should it preferably be taken to OASIS, ET= SI, or the W3C?

Now you are starting to make thinly vailed threats.
I will not respond to those.

I have been quite receptive for picking up the application rules in draft-m= cnally-deterministic-cbor as a CBOR work item.=C2=A0
You just need to stop thinking of them as changing CBOR.

> The target for an interoperability profile are the 80-90% of all devel= opers working with enterprise systems as well as open standards for banking= and similar.

The point here is =E2=80=9Can interoperability profile=E2=80=9D.=C2=A0
You could define many, and defining one for fintech etc. is fine =E2=80=94 = it just isn=E2=80=99t a =E2=80=9CCBOR interoperability profile=E2=80=9D, bu= t a =E2=80=9Chow is our specific set of applications going to use CBOR=E2= =80=9D profile.

Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten

--000000000000e89cab05faededeb--