Re: [Rats] FW: [Cbor] πŸ”” WGLC on draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-02

Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> Thu, 29 October 2020 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <lgl@island-resort.com>
X-Original-To: rats@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rats@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838213A0317 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Ei7Id5cSU_y for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plsmtpa12-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa12-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [68.178.252.230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3205F3A02C1 for <rats@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.81] ([76.167.193.86]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPA id YDqLk1qbhZkNsYDqMkIPGm; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:44:18 -0700
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=WNW64lgR c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=5f9b1b92 a=t2DvPg6iSvRzsOFYbaV4uQ==:117 a=t2DvPg6iSvRzsOFYbaV4uQ==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=5KLPUuaC_9wA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=YpF0y9STXbhQHljeBh4A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=WiFMg2hEW7gA:10 a=JRYF3h_zhQEA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
X-SECURESERVER-ACCT: lgl@island-resort.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
From: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
In-Reply-To: <12027D40-562D-4859-8A3B-25551C5CBAC8@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:44:17 -0700
Cc: "sacm@ietf.org" <sacm@ietf.org>, "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F835894B-8149-4884-AEFB-76EBD07DFB61@island-resort.com>
References: <12027D40-562D-4859-8A3B-25551C5CBAC8@ericsson.com>
To: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfO+kjQApJqEjMO/q200QrJi/UElLb/Mwel895FIx4xPL2mMyzxVJUePVaBv+7gWG7OXvmDPhSWwMWrURLq/SVo/5MGkCGiRF0RZgmzXrrAzpHfvx6DrD M1B633w5wo8Zbu4pILuRVffHga4WkFBGBw2+vRicyFhHhbU2cswJy/2e+1enZ2Ji6nq7onD1UAfcB9Fg/cGdGLOHVnJWRquse6EXUuh1vqq3fJS/panf3DxQ mX2ZS2GgAPtwOlgly3TJ94XiN4/wY7X33kWTYtQw2Qp1NMO0eoUxpIelEq3rdOL0r0aCdp90wEaxyegpx2rT5hcH/hvqQy/qw2yfM0oTPVU=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/nwxoQrrnmVF1-iDP1WqwTMgYIHs>
Subject: Re: [Rats] =?utf-8?b?Rlc6IFtDYm9yXSDwn5SUIFdHTEMgb24gZHJhZnQtaWV0?= =?utf-8?q?f-cbor-tags-oid-02?=
X-BeenThere: rats@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Remote ATtestation procedureS <rats.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rats>, <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rats/>
List-Post: <mailto:rats@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats>, <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:46:35 -0000

The question I have is whether there is any intent for these OIDs to be keys or labels in CBOR maps. In X.509/PKIX extensions are labeled by OIDs. Would there be similar use in CBOR?

Typically, CBOR map labels are integers and sometimes text strings. Having to pay attention to tags in map keys might be very inconvenient for some CBOR decoders, though that could be avoided in a given protocol by saying the map keys are byte strings that borrow tag 111 content eliminating the need for the tag.

LL

> On Oct 29, 2020, at 3:44 AM, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi SACM and RATS wg,
> 
> FYI, CBOR has just started a 2 weeks WGLC on the CBOR Tags for OIDs, which might be of interest to you.
> 
> Any feedback and review is welcome!
> Francesca (CBOR chair)
> 
> ο»ΏOn 29/10/2020, 10:57, "CBOR on behalf of Francesca Palombini" <cbor-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of francesca.palombini=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
>    CBOR wg,
> 
>    This starts a two weeks WG last call on https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-02 , ending on *Thursday, 12th November*. 
> 
>    Please send inputs to the mailing list that you have read the document and do or do not feel it is ready to progress, along with any issues that you believe need to be dealt with.
> 
>    We will discuss any open issues we’ve gotten during our WG meeting at IETF109 scheduled for Thursday, 19 November.
> 
>    CBOR Chair
>    Francesca
> 
>    On 28/10/2020, 18:44, "CBOR on behalf of internet-drafts@ietf.org" <cbor-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>        A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>        This draft is a work item of the Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions WG of the IETF.
> 
>                Title           : Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Object Identifiers
>                Authors         : Carsten Bormann
>                                  Sean Leonard
>        	Filename        : draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-02.txt
>        	Pages           : 14
>        	Date            : 2020-10-28
> 
>        Abstract:
>           The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, draft-ietf-cbor-
>           7049bis) is a data format whose design goals include the possibility
>           of extremely small code size, fairly small message size, and
>           extensibility without the need for version negotiation.
> 
>           The present document defines CBOR tags for object identifiers (OIDs).
>           It is intended as the reference document for the IANA registration of
>           the CBOR tags so defined.
> 
> 
>        The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid/
> 
>        There is also an HTML version available at:
>        https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-02.html
> 
>        A diff from the previous version is available at:
>        https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cbor-tags-oid-02
> 
> 
>        Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>        until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
>        Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>        ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> 
>        _______________________________________________
>        CBOR mailing list
>        CBOR@ietf.org
>        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
> 
>    _______________________________________________
>    CBOR mailing list
>    CBOR@ietf.org
>    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> RATS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats