Re: [media-types] Review requested for draft-bormann-cbor-04

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 19 July 2013 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: media-types@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: media-types@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0590211E80FD for <media-types@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.002, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XzPFh3m8ubS7 for <media-types@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6EF821E80CE for <media-types@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-228.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6JHWW8P050011 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:32:33 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-228.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.228] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <dmriu8d6h8n9hv2q18kd54fl5v6u1n9ogt@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:32:32 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <B0F5F288-8307-4B0C-BF52-1D0E158C9842@vpnc.org>
References: <6B5DD251-B033-420E-8BFF-51784EDE6E29@vpnc.org> <88736767-FD9F-48A0-955F-92FFAD3B0319@vpnc.org> <dmriu8d6h8n9hv2q18kd54fl5v6u1n9ogt@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 09:16:06 -0700
Cc: media-types@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [media-types] Review requested for draft-bormann-cbor-04
X-BeenThere: media-types@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IANA mailing list for reviewing Media Type \(MIME Type, Content Type\) registration requests." <media-types.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/media-types>, <mailto:media-types-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/media-types>
List-Post: <mailto:media-types@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:media-types-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types>, <mailto:media-types-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 17:32:41 -0000

On Jul 19, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> At 09:09 15-07-2013, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> * John R Levine wrote:
>>>> Encoding considerations:  none; CBOR is a binary format
>>> 
>>> Then it's 'binary', not 'none'.
>> 
>> I have seen it done as "none" more often than "binary". Can this group 
>> give us a definitive answer for the choice? We're happy to do what the 
>> group wants, but right now I can't tell which it should be.
> 
> See <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838#section-4.8>. RFC 2048 did not
> list particular values to use, but RFC 4288 and its successor let you
> choose only among the four values listed, and "none" is not among them.

Thanks for the pointer. "binary" seems fine then.

>>>> Security considerations:  Same as for the base document
>>> 
>>> This could use an additional sentence explaining why there is and what
>>> is a "base document" in this context, and why the higher-level format
>>> does not introduce any new security considerations.
>> 
>> This registration is part of an Internet-Draft this is likely to become 
>> an RFC; the registration won't live on its own or, if it does, that 
>> should say "the registration comes from RFC wxyz". If this group has a 
>> preferred way of saying that, we'd be happy to use it.
> 
> In RFC 4329 I used "See section 5." if that is the intended meaning.

Sure, we can change this to a direct pointer.

--Paul Hoffman