[CFRG] Re: Where should test vectors live?

[Christopher Patton <[e-mail]>]

Colin,

What would be the contents of the "Additional resources" field? Would it
just be a link to GitHub? Ideally the RFC itself would tell you where to
get test vectors: do you think it's inappropriate for the RFC itself to
link to GitHub?

Chris P.

On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 10:03 AM Colin Perkins <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The datatracker has an “Additional resources” field for each draft, that
> can be used to cross-reference to GitHub repos, etc.
>
> Colin
>
> On 20 Sep 2024, at 1:17, Christopher Patton wrote:
>
> Hi CFRG,
>
> It occurred to me today that our drafts often have human-friendly test
> vectors that look something like this:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9180#appendix-A.1.1
>
> These aren't super convenient for a machine. In theory you could write a
> script that downloads https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9180.txt and
> write a parser to pull out the test vectors, but does anyone really do
> this? Luckily for RFC 9180 we have a JSON version to work with instead:
>
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cfrg/draft-irtf-cfrg-hpke/refs/heads/master/test-vectors.json
>
> How do folks feel about pointing to machine readable test vectors from an
> RFC in lieu of producing human-friendly, but machine-unfriendly in the
> appendix? Suppose for example an RFC had a pointer to a JSON blob somewhere
> on datatracker. Is this feasible/desirable?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris P.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CFRG mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>