IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-core-new-block

supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com Thu, 18 February 2021 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <jon.shallow@jpshallow.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 520A73A145F for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:01:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 Ty67UNSIFTs8 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:01:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.jpshallow.com (mail.jpshallow.com [217.40.240.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34D3D3A1454 for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:00:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2.jpshallow.com ([192.168.0.3] helo=N01332) by mail.jpshallow.com with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <jon.shallow@jpshallow.com>) id 1lCmfb-0005Vy-Jv; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 17:00:51 +0000
From: supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com
To: christian@amsuess.com
Cc: draft-ietf-core-new-block@ietf.org, dots@ietf.org, core@ietf.org
References: <022401d6e440$06763ba0$1362b2e0$@jpshallow.com> <YCxikyadpukaiK5I@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <004601d705f8$acbec250$063c46f0$@jpshallow.com> <YC5sPGW0TD/PybvD@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <00f901d70614$5ab51b50$101f51f0$@jpshallow.com> <YC6ZQktwMjVZcaZc@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
In-Reply-To: <YC6ZQktwMjVZcaZc@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 17:00:55 -0000
Message-ID: <011801d70617$9eeb3c70$dcc1b550$@jpshallow.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKHUmmxquhArXd4h/ZvumPsHfcPaAHVBsU8AgePCMYCKEdkNwJGSVBOANS1kPiotIo9wA==
Content-Language: en-gb
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/5QkqIGHjg_saCG5uCphokzqXreA>
Subject: Re: [core] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-core-new-block
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 17:01:03 -0000

Hi Christian,

> the CDDL definition is fine and following the state-of-the-art workaround.
>
> But what it means is that the array wrapping is only there on paper to
make the
> CDDL happy. And as the array header does not hit the wire (and is not
generally
> constructed in memory either), the implementation note is moot.

Happy to remove the (actual) array wrappers and associated stuff despite
CDDL documentation text.

I think I will add in an example to keep me happy by removing any ambiguity
about the array.

Regards

Jon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email