Subject: Re: [Teep] JSON/JOSE vs. CBOR/COSE

From: "Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 07:07:07 +0000

We see consensus to go with CBOR/COSE and CBOR diagnostic notation for debugging purpose. I believe the issue is closed.

Cheers,
-Tiru

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 塚本明 <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 2:19 PM
> To: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Henk Birkholz <[email-masked]>; Hannes Tschofenig
> <[email-masked]>; Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> <[email-masked]>; Nicolae Paladi
> <[email-masked]>; teep <[email-masked]>; Mingliang Pei
> <mingliang.pei=[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [Teep] JSON/JOSE vs. CBOR/COSE
> 
> CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
> recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> 
> On 2020/02/25 17:40, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> > On 2020-02-25, at 09:37, 塚本明 <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Also, during the hackathon at Berlin, we did have a code to show the
> >> contents of teem messages in the sources but at the end we had to use
> >> WireShark to debug when we could not figure out why it is giving some
> >> of the parsing errors for received message, so having text representation
> in the binary packet helped the prototyping.
> >
> > Wireshark has a CBOR dissector.
> > Maybe we should collect some information about how to best use tools
> like Wireshark for debugging and diagnostics.
> 
> Wow, I did not know the Wireshark has a CBOR dissector. It seems to be a
> good topic at the next hackathon.
> 
> -Akira
>