Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Sequences
draft-ietf-cbor-sequence-02
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-02-18
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2020-02-12
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2019-12-16
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2019-10-23
|
02 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Reviews assigned |
2019-10-23
|
02 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2019-10-18
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Telechat review by OPSDIR to Sarah Banks was marked no-response |
2019-10-14
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2019-10-11
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2019-10-11
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2019-10-10
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2019-10-08
|
02 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2019-10-08
|
02 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2019-10-08
|
02 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2019-10-08
|
02 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2019-10-08
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2019-10-08
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2019-10-08
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2019-10-08
|
02 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-10-08
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2019-09-25
|
02 | Carsten Bormann | New version available: draft-ietf-cbor-sequence-02.txt |
2019-09-25
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-09-25
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carsten Bormann |
2019-09-25
|
02 | Carsten Bormann | Uploaded new revision |
2019-09-19
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2019-09-19
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] IANA is still waiting for DE review. |
2019-09-19
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot comment text updated for Alexey Melnikov |
2019-09-19
|
01 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2019-09-19
|
01 | Ignas Bagdonas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas |
2019-09-19
|
01 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2019-09-18
|
01 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Section 2 o Otherwise, decode a single CBOR data item from the bytes of the CBOR sequence, and insert … [Ballot comment] Section 2 o Otherwise, decode a single CBOR data item from the bytes of the CBOR sequence, and insert the resulting CBOR data model value at the start of the result of decoding the rest of the bytes as a CBOR sequence. (A streaming decoder would therefore simply deliver zero or more CBOR data model values, each of which as soon as the bytes making it up are available.) nit: I think s/each of which/each of which is delivered/, or just take Barry's suggestion that addresses the nit differently. Section 3 The use case for the "+cbor-seq" structured syntax suffix is the same as for "+cbor": It SHOULD be used by a media type when parsing the nit: if the use case is literally "the same as" for "+cbor" then there would seem to be literally no value in having "+cbor-seq". So perhaps "essentially the same as" or similar would be more appropriate? Section 5 I might note that when COSE is applied to the elements of a sequence, the cryptographic protection is on a per-element basis, and thus there is no guarantee of relationship between level of protection, source authentication, time of generation, etc., across members of the sequence. Section 6.1 It's probably best to treat the following as a side note and thus not an actionable comment, but couldn't the URL fragment fairly easily be used to extract numbered elements of the sequence? |
2019-09-18
|
01 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-09-18
|
01 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2019-09-18
|
01 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2019-09-18
|
01 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2019-09-18
|
01 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2019-09-18
|
01 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Thank you for writing this. |
2019-09-18
|
01 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2019-09-18
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2019-09-17
|
01 | Pete Resnick | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Pete Resnick. Sent review to list. |
2019-09-17
|
01 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adam Roach has been changed to Yes from No Objection |
2019-09-17
|
01 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2019-09-17
|
01 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2019-09-17
|
01 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2019-09-16
|
01 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Experts State changed to Reviews assigned |
2019-09-16
|
01 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2019-09-16
|
01 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-cbor-sequence-01. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-cbor-sequence-01. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete. First, in the application subregistry of the Media Types registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/ a single, new Media Type will be added as follows: Name: cbor-seq Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in the Expert Review range of the CoAP Content-Formats registry on the Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/core-parameters/ a single, new registration will be made as follows: Media Type: application/cbor-seq Encoding: ID: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. Third, in the Structured Syntax Suffix Registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-type-structured-suffix/ a single, new registration is to be made as follows: Name: CBOR Sequence +suffix: +cbor-seq References: [ RFC-to-be ] Encoding considerations: binary Interoperability considerations: n/a Fragment identifier considerations: The syntax and semantics of fragment identifiers specified for +cbor-seq SHOULD be as specified for "application/cbor-seq". (At publication of this document, there is no fragment identification syntax defined for "application/cbor-seq".) The syntax and semantics for fragment identifiers for a specific "xxx/yyy+cbor-seq" SHOULD be processed as follows: For cases defined in +cbor-seq, where the fragment identifier resolves per the +cbor-seq rules, then process as specified in +cbor-seq. For cases defined in +cbor-seq, where the fragment identifier does not resolve per the +cbor-seq rules, then process as specified in "xxx/yyy+cbor-seq". For cases not defined in +cbor-seq, then process as specified in "xxx/yyy+cbor-seq". Security considerations: See [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5 Contact: CBOR WG mailing list (cbor@ietf.org), or any IESG- designated successor. Author/Change controller: IETF As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2019-09-12
|
01 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Carsten, Thank you for the work put into this document. I have one minor COMMENT/suggestion and I am relying on the ART area … [Ballot comment] Carsten, Thank you for the work put into this document. I have one minor COMMENT/suggestion and I am relying on the ART area directors for the integration in the CBOR framework. Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == -- Section 2 -- C.1) Unsure whether the "(Note that, ... valid JSON documents.)" is useful in this document (I told you it is a minor comment). |
2019-09-12
|
01 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2019-09-11
|
01 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Thanks for a fine and mostly easy-to-read document. There’s just one bit that I find hard to read: — Section 2 — … [Ballot comment] Thanks for a fine and mostly easy-to-read document. There’s just one bit that I find hard to read: — Section 2 — Decoding a CBOR Sequence works as follows: o If the CBOR Sequence is an empty sequence of bytes, the result is an empty sequence of CBOR data model values. o Otherwise, decode a single CBOR data item from the bytes of the CBOR sequence, and insert the resulting CBOR data model value at the start of the result of decoding the rest of the bytes as a CBOR sequence. (A streaming decoder would therefore simply deliver zero or more CBOR data model values, each of which as soon as the bytes making it up are available.) I find the phrasing of the second bullet (the part “at the start of the result of decoding the rest of the bytes as a CBOR sequence.”) really hard to parse. After a brief email exchange between Carsten and me before he zipped off on holidays, I propose this minor re-wording: NEW o Otherwise, decode a single CBOR data item from the bytes of the CBOR sequence, and insert the resulting CBOR data model value at the start of the result of repeating this decoding process recursively. (A streaming decoder would therefore simply deliver zero or more CBOR data model values, each as soon as the bytes making it up are available.) END Does that work for you, Carsten? |
2019-09-11
|
01 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2019-09-09
|
01 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks |
2019-09-09
|
01 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks |
2019-09-06
|
01 | Stephen Kent | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Stephen Kent. Sent review to list. |
2019-09-06
|
01 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick |
2019-09-06
|
01 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick |
2019-09-05
|
01 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-09-05
|
01 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Kent |
2019-09-05
|
01 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Kent |
2019-09-03
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-09-19 |
2019-09-03
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2019-09-03
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-09-17): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: cbor@ietf.org, ietf@augustcellars.com, Jim Schaad , draft-ietf-cbor-sequence@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-09-17): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: cbor@ietf.org, ietf@augustcellars.com, Jim Schaad , draft-ietf-cbor-sequence@ietf.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, cbor-chairs@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Sequences) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions WG (cbor) to consider the following document: - 'Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Sequences' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-09-17. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Sequence format and associated media type "application/cbor- seq". A CBOR Sequence consists of any number of encoded CBOR data items, simply concatenated in sequence. Structured syntax suffixes for media types allow other media types to build on them and make it explicit that they are built on an existing media type as their foundation. This specification defines and registers "+cbor-seq" as a structured syntax suffix for CBOR Sequences. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-sequence/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-sequence/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2019-09-03
|
01 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2019-09-03
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot has been issued |
2019-09-03
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2019-09-03
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | Created "Approve" ballot |
2019-09-03
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-09-03
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | Last call was requested |
2019-09-03
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | Last call announcement was generated |
2019-09-03
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-09-03
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup was generated |
2019-09-03
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2019-09-03
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | AD review: This is a well written document. I have one (non blocking) question: Any particular reason why file extension is not defined in Section … AD review: This is a well written document. I have one (non blocking) question: Any particular reason why file extension is not defined in Section 6.1? |
2019-09-03
|
01 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2019-08-30
|
01 | Jim Schaad | (1) The document is set as a Proposed Standard. A media and streaming type are defined and it is expected that these will be commonly … (1) The document is set as a Proposed Standard. A media and streaming type are defined and it is expected that these will be commonly used. The RFC is correctly tagged. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document describes how a sequence of CBOR objects can be transmitted in an environment that uses media types. A CBOR sequence is not a legal CBOR object. The document also defines a structured syntax for allowing generic parsing of CBOR sequences using "+cbor-seq". Working Group Summary There was some discussion about the need to define this data structure as it can be done by the use of an indefinite array. The consensus of the working group was that this would be a useful item to have. Document Quality The document is simple and understandable. I have seen code for one implementation of CBOR Sequences and it appeared to match the document from a brief reading of the code. All of the registrations have been sent to the appropriate review mailing list and there has been no returned comments. Personnel The Document Shepherd is Jim Schaad. The Responsible Area Director is Alexey Melnikov. (3) I did the following items: 1) read the document, 2) checked the document against the nits list, 3) read the mailing list to make sure all of the WGLC issues were dealt with. There is a formatting issue in the text version that is a result of the interaction between the markdown that is used by the author and xml2rfc. The formatting issue is not present in the html version and is fixable by the RPC without any problems. (4) While the document has only recently been adopted, there has been extensive discussions on the list. I am happy with the amount of discussion. (5) I do not believe that a broader perspective is needed on the document. The reviews in the WG should be sufficient. (6) I have no concerns with the document. (7) All authors have confirmed that they neither have or are aware of any IPR related to this document ** Carsten Bormnn *** 19 Aug 2019 (8) No IPR disclosures have been filed. (9) This is a strong concensus of the active participants. Only a single voice suggested that it might not be necessary. (10) There has been no strong dissent during the document discussions. (11) No nits found. (12) The document needs to have a review done for the media type to be registered and for the Structured Syntax Suffix. Message was sent to the list 14 Aug 2019. (13) All references are correctly tagged. (14) There are no dependencies on documents that are not published. If the document is delayed for some reason then it would be updated to refer the the Internet Standard for CBOR. (15) There are no downward references. (16) This document makes no changes to any existing documents. CDDL (RFC 8610) defined the concept of a CBOR Sequence, this document formalized how it can be transported. (17) I looked at the one template that I was not familiar with and made sure that it was correct. The set of items in the IANA section match those that are declared as being created in the text. (18) No new registries are created (19) No review to validate any sections of the document is required. |
2019-08-30
|
01 | Jim Schaad | Responsible AD changed to Alexey Melnikov |
2019-08-30
|
01 | Jim Schaad | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2019-08-30
|
01 | Jim Schaad | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2019-08-30
|
01 | Jim Schaad | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-08-30
|
01 | Carsten Bormann | New version available: draft-ietf-cbor-sequence-01.txt |
2019-08-30
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-30
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Carsten Bormann |
2019-08-30
|
01 | Carsten Bormann | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-30
|
00 | Jim Schaad | (1) The document is set as a Proposed Standard. A media and streaming type are defined and it is expected that these will be commonly … (1) The document is set as a Proposed Standard. A media and streaming type are defined and it is expected that these will be commonly used. The RFC is correctly tagged. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document describes how a sequence of CBOR objects can be transmitted in an environment that uses media types. A CBOR sequence is not a legal CBOR object. The document also defines a structured syntax for allowing generic parsing of CBOR sequences using "+cbor-seq". Working Group Summary There was some discussion about the need to define this data structure as it can be done by the use of an indefinite array. The consensus of the working group was that this would be a useful item to have. Document Quality The document is simple and understandable. I have seen code for one implementation of CBOR Sequences and it appeared to match the document from a brief reading of the code. All of the registrations have been sent to the appropriate review mailing list and there has been no returned comments. Personnel The Document Shepherd is Jim Schaad. The Responsible Area Director is Alexey Melnikov. (3) I did the following items: 1) read the document, 2) checked the document against the nits list, 3) read the mailing list to make sure all of the WGLC issues were dealt with. There is a formatting issue in the text version that is a result of the interaction between the markdown that is used by the author and xml2rfc. The formatting issue is not present in the html version and is fixable by the RPC without any problems. (4) While the document has only recently been adopted, there has been extensive discussions on the list. I am happy with the amount of discussion. (5) I do not believe that a broader perspective is needed on the document. The reviews in the WG should be sufficient. (6) I have no concerns with the document. (7) All authors have confirmed that they neither have or are aware of any IPR related to this document ** Carsten Bormnn *** 19 Aug 2019 (8) No IPR disclosures have been filed. (9) This is a strong concensus of the active participants. Only a single voice suggested that it might not be necessary. (10) There has been no strong dissent during the document discussions. (11) No nits found. (12) The document needs to have a review done for the media type to be registered and for the Structured Syntax Suffix. Message was sent to the list 14 Aug 2019. (13) All references are correctly tagged. (14) There are no dependencies on documents that are not published. If the document is delayed for some reason then it would be updated to refer the the Internet Standard for CBOR. (15) There are no downward references. (16) This document makes no changes to any existing documents. CDDL (RFC 8610) defined the concept of a CBOR Sequence, this document formalized how it can be transported. (17) I looked at the one template that I was not familiar with and made sure that it was correct. The set of items in the IANA section match those that are declared as being created in the text. (18) No new registries are created (19) No review to validate any sections of the document is required. |
2019-08-14
|
00 | Jim Schaad | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2019-08-13
|
00 | Jim Schaad | Notification list changed to Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> |
2019-08-13
|
00 | Jim Schaad | Document shepherd changed to Jim Schaad |
2019-08-13
|
00 | Jim Schaad | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2019-08-13
|
00 | Jim Schaad | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2019-08-13
|
00 | (System) | This document now replaces draft-bormann-cbor-sequence instead of None |
2019-08-13
|
00 | Carsten Bormann | New version available: draft-ietf-cbor-sequence-00.txt |
2019-08-13
|
00 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-13
|
00 | Carsten Bormann | Request for posting confirmation emailed to submitter and authors: Carsten Bormann |
2019-08-13
|
00 | Carsten Bormann | Uploaded new revision |