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

On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 6:30 AM Jiri Vlasak <jiri.hubacek@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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.

> 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?

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

-Ekr

> If you can join the session remotely, I expect we can have a useful
> > discussion about this and related topics.
>
> I will try to save the time and do my best in the discussion.
>
> [1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-devault-bare/
> [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8949.html
> [3]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4506.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> dispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>