MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAG2Zi20N98cxpgjfRe6gWw1SQEoux+5P3NhLBFUfUHk_udYeFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <AFC838DA-68C1-476C-8823-C3BF1E38CE39@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <AFC838DA-68C1-476C-8823-C3BF1E38CE39@csperkins.org>
From: Christopher Patton <cpatton@cloudflare.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 10:28:50 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAG2Zi23hBZjJ==G0sRwyN+w9bH3ww=G3=MC3eHY+cExqd6X57Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000e44db062290604d"
Message-ID-Hash: YCUP7CPBJM3RNXJNO63TGEJERGRMEMFA
CC: CFRG <cfrg@irtf.org>
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BCFRG=5D_Re=3A_Where_should_test_vectors_live=3F?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/vfro_aZh0zzU78IGQIElI_D9Kzc>

--0000000000000e44db062290604d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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=E2=80=AFAM Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> =
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The datatracker has an =E2=80=9CAdditional resources=E2=80=9D field for e=
ach 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/ma=
ster/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 somewhe=
re
> on datatracker. Is this feasible/desirable?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris P.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CFRG mailing list -- cfrg@irtf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to cfrg-leave@irtf.org
>
>

--0000000000000e44db062290604d
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Colin,</div><div><br></div><div>What would be the con=
tents of the &quot;Additional resources&quot; field? Would it just be a lin=
k to GitHub? Ideally the RFC itself would tell you where to get test vector=
s: do you think it&#39;s inappropriate for the RFC itself to link to GitHub=
?</div><div><br></div><div>Chris P.<br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_=
quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 10:03=
=E2=80=AFAM Colin Perkins &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:csp@csperkins.org">csp@cspe=
rkins.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex"><u></u>




<div><div style=3D"font-family:sans-serif"><div style=3D"white-space:normal=
"><p dir=3D"auto">Hi,</p>
<p dir=3D"auto">The datatracker has an =E2=80=9CAdditional resources=E2=80=
=9D field for each draft, that can be used to cross-reference to GitHub rep=
os, etc.</p>
<p dir=3D"auto">Colin</p>
<br><p dir=3D"auto">On 20 Sep 2024, at 1:17, Christopher Patton wrote:</p>
</div><blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 5px;padding-left:5px;border-left:=
2px solid rgb(88,85,213);color:rgb(88,85,213)"><div id=3D"m_-46471364109830=
42165F14734CF-0569-4607-88A4-B73971CA7394">

<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div>Hi CFRG,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>It occurred to me today that our drafts often have human-friendly test=
 vectors that look something like this:</div>
<div><a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9180#appendix-A.1.=
1" target=3D"_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9180#appendix=
-A.1.1</a></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>These aren&#39;t super convenient for a machine. In theory you could w=
rite a script that downloads <a href=3D"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9=
180.txt" target=3D"_blank">https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9180.txt</a> a=
nd write a parser to pull out the test vectors, but does anyone really do t=
his? Luckily for RFC 9180 we have a JSON version to work with instead:</div=
>
<div><a href=3D"https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cfrg/draft-irtf-cfrg-hpke=
/refs/heads/master/test-vectors.json" target=3D"_blank">https://raw.githubu=
sercontent.com/cfrg/draft-irtf-cfrg-hpke/refs/heads/master/test-vectors.jso=
n</a></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Chris P.<br></div>
<br></div></div></blockquote>
<div style=3D"white-space:normal">
<blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 5px;padding-left:5px;border-left:2px so=
lid rgb(88,85,213);color:rgb(88,85,213)"><p dir=3D"auto">__________________=
_____________________________
<br>
CFRG mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:cfrg@irtf.org" target=3D"_blank">cfr=
g@irtf.org</a>
<br>
To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:cfrg-leave@irtf.org" targ=
et=3D"_blank">cfrg-leave@irtf.org</a></p>
</blockquote></div>

</div>
</div>


</blockquote></div>

--0000000000000e44db062290604d--