Re: [dtn] Question on generation of Status Reports

[RJ A <[e-mail]>]

> On Apr 3, 2024, at 12:09, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
>  Separately, it has been pointed out that RFC 9171’a rule for the CBOR encoding of the status indicators of bundle status items is not altogether clear.  These are Boolean values that are supposed to be encoded as “CBOR Boolean values”, but the CBOR specification doesn’t actually define any “Boolean values”.  What was intended here was that the status indicator should have a value of 0 or 1, the Boolean values; the CBOR encoding for such a value ought to be 000 00000 or 000 00001, i.e., major type 0 (unsigned integer) with Additional Information providing the value.  An erratum to this effect is in the works somewhere, I think.  [An alternative would be to CBOR-encode such a value as a CBOR simple/float (major type 7) with Additional Information set to 20 (interpreted as False) or 21 (interpreted as True) according to Table 4 of RFC 8949.  Since False and True are not, themselves, Boolean values but are instead the propositional interpretations of the Boolean values 0 and 1, I think this diverges from the intent of RFC 9171 and would argue for just 0 or 1 instead.  There may be endless disagreement over this point.]

If anyone wants this (or anything else which might be ambiguous or confusing) clarified, the right process step probably is to file a proposed erratum on RFC-9171.

Ran