IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mimi] Work In Progress mimi-content draft with TLS PL and CBOR syntax

Rohan Mahy <rohan.mahy@gmail.com> Thu, 11 April 2024 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <rohan.mahy@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mimi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mimi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB12BC14F697 for <mimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L5qS9hgfL_9q for <mimi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x532.google.com (mail-ed1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) (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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E4E5C14F682 for <mimi@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x532.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-56e2b41187aso1795484a12.1 for <mimi@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1712850642; x=1713455442; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9eK3/l/8KsA4a4Nz6yGYetdxyF1GXhfNp0B9ht3pKZ8=; b=SAMi6PdQGRBcNAZw0iBQoLq22Dd94eU5Ri0U18pkXn+CSOmNBjlj77wCr5JUi/e8hU Ox0y24oUYH3PZQKSiOC8ryAPeSfRIgvvXizJrRg8cIxVB6NyePVdHDliS0pqybopwYs6 8legtephQtFWkJCNY+NrnYane7f+G6yA8QRQn26Ahdmvh2hRtoQ28Jc3mGraydBVIIAf Q0XVytD6gsnSZbN2dBpHCLbhSpvevpWdtLdUuLBys9qgHnjU35Ik9GuwEG21z7xW2jJD 3qU4yQq1jWrT3rdGPp2WTSwjJ6sDDnR28fdmRFHOatc3JBnRO6KIhlYoNd0hZNXgvhWC b8cw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712850642; x=1713455442; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=9eK3/l/8KsA4a4Nz6yGYetdxyF1GXhfNp0B9ht3pKZ8=; b=UM065U1KP4hrnEw87fTxW/FZkqrYJM6DKPv5SWOYwjCZZ7Xy6zGvXbf/7gU/XGzh+Z wnIGxE5MBBApukETf3sYFnrtHWCBIji7JQPkLVEBI9UstFYmsNj4Z3AYeTMiqSPw1zgG p2vX9JRFfci98j5Szvi6Ra8efUXgVAvSynnlO67MzsACGz0OXYpRgdKzpgQTRokBu8Gj 56gWu0RdEwCG57zVpf5xoMeWRtrXcHPEvIzCCx9WGVLvQwi2ni1hXytyQEfoEWq3BVy+ dvfsnKyC/iX+VOBhIsTYV+3n7bYYKOVQFBdouYmYX/LDrm0+hPKpkaQgF3dN+rdrSt6I nlPQ==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXCISHyhepdD1yEjsJhxlGhhMD6ntVOygT1Rpi9pybM53xVfN8kP23Pf11jEKLvG3X4cjTdc15bdXUnpRv4
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyyrouZ2pNqCKZfv7qo+6QPDfUBZGa3YJWJAyjYR780d3ulQISo zcwD6oADhj95luD0kmbjj8TVX2RJ41TRJi0Bh5clRrjvA6h3WWmXRBXIm0BqeQuduUOzmugdZ0y zKTzpMTbFjW7HlQ79SjxM22lZYcZdNCbe
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IENJnVEMgomjdht7szMQyLlCB/fP65shn0HW9RNmlg2LV8p7IzO6xUhLwSCGxQQjGB5lYaFrKtS1t++ePU9mhU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:4492:b0:56e:7281:55eb with SMTP id er18-20020a056402449200b0056e728155ebmr2171256edb.9.1712850641868; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKoiRuZrPfFdRwM1pDFi-CmNNeqeQZBU6gWzmQsO06mQAWXE2Q@mail.gmail.com> <CANd9WG4xRsS1aBHfg9Bp1GeJ5iatEb_PF2B8vk9LjFPBbA20GA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANd9WG4xRsS1aBHfg9Bp1GeJ5iatEb_PF2B8vk9LjFPBbA20GA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rohan Mahy <rohan.mahy@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:50:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKoiRuZ7qcmwmZ6teeJQL8R=TLLvpmN-08_6AXin5Tfuruj0rg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Travis Ralston <travisr@matrix.org>
Cc: Rohan Mahy <rohan.ietf@gmail.com>, mimi@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000fe0ec0615d41edc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mimi/4Ln79EfXlJQifOR4NTTTZsvwuYc>
Subject: Re: [Mimi] Work In Progress mimi-content draft with TLS PL and CBOR syntax
X-BeenThere: mimi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: More Instant Messaging Interoperability <mimi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mimi>, <mailto:mimi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mimi/>
List-Post: <mailto:mimi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mimi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mimi>, <mailto:mimi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:50:48 -0000

Hi Travis,
I banged out this CDDL last night:

https://github.com/ietf-wg-mimi/draft-ietf-mimi-content/blob/main/mimi-content.cddl

It is very slightly different from the format in the examples.
- The NestedPart is wrapped in an array. I think CDDL required this in
order to support nesting without risk of ambiguity.
- I also didn't include all the enumerations (ex: hashAlg and disposition).

I hand wrote all the examples just to get something out there. I will write
some code to generate the CBOR examples in extended diagnostic notation.

Thanks,
-rohan

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:30 PM Travis Ralston <travisr@matrix.org> wrote:

> Hi Rohan,
>
> Thanks for preparing this difference. The binary examples help show
> there's no meaningful savings/cost to either format over the wire, which
> I'm taking as a plus for either, though they don't appear to illustrate if
> the model is more naturally represented by TLS-PL or CBOR. If we use the
> notation from RFC 8610 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8610> (particularly
> Appendix H as a visual example), are there obvious cases where CBOR is
> better/worse from a modeling perspective? Having reference examples using
> CDDL I think would help determine which of the encodings is a better fit
> for what we're trying to achieve.
>
> Thanks,
> Travis Ralston
> The Matrix.org Foundation C.I.C.
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 11:19 AM Rohan Mahy <rohan.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Everyone,
>> At IETF 119, we discussed moving to a concrete syntax for the MIMI
>> content format. I have a Work In Progress which has both TLS Presentation
>> Language and CBOR examples and struts defined for TLS PL. This would be an
>> excellent time to have a glance and see if I am going in a direction that
>> folks like.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -rohan
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mimi mailing list
>> Mimi@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mimi
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email