Skip to main content

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