Subject: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-06.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 07:39:57 -0800

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 data definition language (CDDL): a notational convention to express CBOR and JSON data structures
        Authors         : Henk Birkholz
                          Christoph Vigano
                          Carsten Bormann
	Filename        : draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-06.txt
	Pages           : 60
	Date            : 2018-11-19

Abstract:
   This document proposes a notational convention to express CBOR data
   structures (RFC 7049, Concise Binary Object Representation).  Its
   main goal is to provide an easy and unambiguous way to express
   structures for protocol messages and data formats that use CBOR or
   JSON.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-cddl/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-06
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-06

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-06

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/

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:10:57 +0100

We have submitted a version of CDDL that should address all the comments from AD review and IETF last call, including the discussions at the Bangkok IETF meeting.

Diff is at: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-06.txt

Most of the changes were editorial.  A technical decision that we made at the Bangkok meeting was prompted by the Gen-ART comment number 3: the behavior of reverse ranges (e.g., 10..0) was not defined.  The text now says:

2.2.2.1.  Ranges

   Instead of naming all the values that make up a choice, CDDL allows
   building a _range_ out of two values that are in an ordering
   relationship: A lower bound (first value) and an upper bound (second
   value).  A range can be inclusive of both bounds given (denoted by
   joining two values by ".."), or include the lower bound and exclude
   the upper bound (denoted by instead using "...").  If the lower bound
   exceeds the upper bound, the resulting type is the empty set (this
   behavior can be desirable when generics, Section 3.10, are being
   used).

So, of the potential meanings of 10..0, we chose the empty set.
This is now in -06; if that is a problem for you, we would like to know about that.

Grüße, Carsten

> On Nov 19, 2018, at 16:39, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
>