Re: [dispatch] draft-devault-bare-07 to be discussed during IETF 114

Jiri Vlasak <> Thu, 09 June 2022 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B53EEC157B5B for <>; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 13:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t4PcBhhkkhO1 for <>; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 13:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) (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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23720C157B4F for <>; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 13:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d14so7084795eda.12 for <>; Thu, 09 Jun 2022 13:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=y6UpLz4LY2E8wRHtGW1sR3DiqatUs89hJuJIMY8g/Ts=; b=H6BX4kdA2djZW1IdPUULB9XN7DcMMwdfveTJ8DL8NyepU72urhBgzGLXebdEtID3Kf Dg6nvrrupdH8D8GFRPhbogmw7O4DyA2+NTIFnQWHrJv3Gylkh+ypIOg0M8kQNtFHvuFr ex4e13lvanqvVXXoEeD9FchqE+aSzprdN9bOAaJ3C9RT+y5MoGji1E8h35OvIhex9Ei/ jeUF4ZCLrHave7RfD1Ej+4SqYihSgF8ErLvsW3pJZAbgJ6htwEmVhwLoxS6wvO3EaRvx rk3WmSuDd1ZJjBYnKkLqfZL48iuG8Z9i40ANpW6exhlwiIAV55Rs/dNJTU0mrbmxzN7t w1TQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=y6UpLz4LY2E8wRHtGW1sR3DiqatUs89hJuJIMY8g/Ts=; b=TimOkwHCVDqgKKhR4PszETpynHHqCcjZZN/7g4Gc+dEIj1EANEsAJct1Pl/K0246cD 9JFav92aRSaG6GWorR8DF1ko1dzB2wTX98b2amQrm0w3K35Bkn/ygEfgo8dlnM2iwiU1 CLVKU+/uF9WejOuI1Fd4H0VHA4ZsZc3W/g3deDdXT8Gz/EpMDzr8vyJSVO/hIvoDIVGo D13xfHGX/myPXFrB3zFextAmnaK0wsy4V9gPr+/XVzm51R+hyYR/Vq64gEA78DCZTV53 K6OjN1DwkMoO5RvdA327Mk2vWkKoug5Bv71HLJhpTTkc/hVHIr1H7iW5WYYZOv371arO ei5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531js1PI1EUNbZdZSRulpw7AHjrCbVfKnKr+unVKdMOHPWQYPiTk Xs138yHiJ+C+cRR3u6Cch0kEgmb0kCj/vw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwWEblFAV1PNfmDv/bUJy5zdqISaJg3KI9Z/pig32N8NiNAZOEmydyyeYSFGIGszTlu9aIeWA==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:dbd0:0:b0:427:4e6e:d779 with SMTP id v16-20020aa7dbd0000000b004274e6ed779mr47425528edt.27.1654805646796; Thu, 09 Jun 2022 13:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id re16-20020a170906d8d000b007081282cbd8sm10813966ejb.76.2022. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 09 Jun 2022 13:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2022 22:14:04 +0200
From: Jiri Vlasak <>
To: Eric Rescorla <>
Cc: John Levine <>, DISPATCH <>
Message-ID: <YqJUjF8W3Dw/>
References: <> <20220608210551.72EB94341C93@ary.qy> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] draft-devault-bare-07 to be discussed during IETF 114
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2022 20:14:12 -0000

> > > An obvious question is why one would use BARE rather than CBOR
> > > which appears at first glance to do the largely the same thing.
> > > See RFCs 8949, 8152, 8392, 8610, 8742, 8746, and 8812.
> >
> > An obvious answer is that because BARE spec [1] is short. It has
> > about 17 pages (depends on the format), that include schema language
> > and many examples.
> >
> Without taking a position on BARE, this is not necessarily a virtue.
> There are (at least) two reasons why a draft might be shorter than
> alternative technologies (1) that it is simpler (2) that is
> underspecified.

(1) is one of the BARE's goals. We worked hard to avoid (2) and I am
happy to discuss it.

> > Moreover, BARE needs the schema available prior to the
> > communication, which is not needed in CBOR [2] as stated in the
> > objectives. In this manner, BARE better compares to XDR [3].
> >
> As I understand it, CBOR does however support schema, no? If so, I'm
> not sure why requiring it is an advantage. Is the idea that it makes
> the format more compact? Something else?

To my understanding, yes, CBOR supports schema. However, to cite from
the CBOR specification [1], "3. Data must be able to be decoded without
a schema description." That is not the case for BARE. So, to cite from
the BARE specification [2], "A BARE message has a comparable size and
entropy to the underlying state it represents."

I am not saying that requiring the schema is an advantage, which lead us
to the original question -- you probably use BARE when you need simple
schema and concise messages; you probably use CBOR when you need
self-descriptive messages.

> Finally, I note that your name does not appear in the author list of
> this document.  Can you clarify the situation here?

Of course, and I am sorry I did not do it earlier. After the -01 version
of the BARE draft the development stagnated. The original author was out
of free time, letting the BARE I-D to expire. After some time, the
requests to revive the specification appeared from the interested
developers. I worked with one of the developers/implementers to review
the BARE and incorporated all the received feedback.

My primary motivation is to understand the RFC process on the
specification, which I believe is worth the standardization.

I was hesitating to add myself and the imlementor mentioned earlier as
the authors, because our roles are more like pre-editor and contributor
ones. So I decided not to, but it is maybe wrong? Could I, please, ask,
what is the common practice in the similar situations?

Thanks, have a nice day,