Re: [Uta] CBOR, XML, JSON (was Re: Updated SMTP STS Draft)

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 05 May 2016 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D7A12DAAE for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 May 2016 07:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 QUCYKT5GJEPp for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 May 2016 07:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 145B212DA53 for <uta@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 May 2016 07:18:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 85493 invoked from network); 5 May 2016 14:18:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 5 May 2016 14:18:08 -0000
Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 14:17:46 -0000
Message-ID: <20160505141746.27164.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: uta@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <A593099D-2950-4B8F-B2EA-162FCCDB5F9F@azet.org>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/oYCkZIM4UquhvQYVVN3P_gG31mo>
Cc: azet@azet.org
Subject: Re: [Uta] CBOR, XML, JSON (was Re: Updated SMTP STS Draft)
X-BeenThere: uta@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: UTA working group mailing list <uta.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/uta/>
List-Post: <mailto:uta@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 14:25:04 -0000

>Well. Depending on the channel we use for feedback, DEFLATE might be a poor option:

Well, yes, but anything can have security bugs, and I expect that the
libraries for gzip which have been around for a decade have been
audited a lot better than the ones for CBOR on which the paint is
still wet.  

People have beens mailing around vast numbers of DMARC reports, most
of which have an application/gzip body.  If there have been attacks
using DEFLATE bugs, nobody's gotten around to reporting them.

Perhaps it would be helpful to explain why it would be a good idea to
invent something new rather than adapt a an existing design that works
well in practice.

R's,
John