Return-Path: X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46F09C14F747 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2024 01:25:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 ZTWvSM0yKela for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2024 01:24:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A05DC15107F for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2024 01:24:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.217.145] (p5dc5d074.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.197.208.116]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4X956H2t5LzDCgg; Fri, 20 Sep 2024 10:24:55 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 10:24:54 +0200 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 748513494.819216-cf3af9b3fe2f67fb9eb19c10114e0f9e Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4A43A49C-443C-4B8C-8795-021ADEEF733E@tzi.org> To: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_Haase?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7) Message-ID-Hash: BCGLI6IAZNGC53FZ6POA76IJWPTKQQB7 X-Message-ID-Hash: BCGLI6IAZNGC53FZ6POA76IJWPTKQQB7 X-MailFrom: cabo@tzi.org X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-cfrg.irtf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: CFRG X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BCFRG=5D_Re=3A_Where_should_test_vectors_live=3F?= List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 2024-09-20, at 10:18, Bj=C3=B6rn Haase = wrote: >=20 > What do you think? Well, as I said, maintaining a JSON blob separate from the document = decouples the evolution of the two, which has advantages and = disadvantages. I was mainly trying to point out that we do have some means to include = sourcecode-like snippets in RFCs *when that is the right thing to do*. You may have other reasons not to want that, but the technicalities = aren=E2=80=99t those. > Does anybody wee a way to avoid the additional Base64 encoding layer, = such that JSON > Content could be directly integrated in a RFC as-is? Well, RFC 8792 is exactly that, and I don=E2=80=99t share your = hesitation: > However, we might get problems with automatically reading the wrapped = text result automatically for re-constructing the test vectors. If there are tools you need for this beyond = kramdown-rfc-extract-sourcecode, I=E2=80=99m sure the tools team and = other tools contributors would be interested to know. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten