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

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
>