From nobody Sat May 6 06:35:08 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E774127337 for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 06:35:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 zy5R0xb8nlbx for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 06:35:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 757F81288B8 for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 06:35:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.201.11]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v46DYxLb009856 for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 15:34:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.113] (p5DC7F3A7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.199.243.167]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3wKqWR1v9fzDHtX; Sat, 6 May 2017 15:34:59 +0200 (CEST) From: Carsten Bormann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 515770498.431319-c1ebf3455406a8730ca39aa79eb6ae83 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Sat, 6 May 2017 15:34:58 +0200 Message-Id: <194E71E8-E29D-490A-A17C-163147AB5FDB@tzi.org> To: cbor@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: [Cbor] Using CDDL with JSON X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 13:35:06 -0000 The use of CDDL with JSON, as in RFC 8007, always was pretty much = obvious, but never has been described in detail. I have written a section on a subset of the prelude that applies to = JSON, also discussing some of the finer points of using CDDL with JSON. = I=E2=80=99d love to hear from people who have experience with this = particular topic. The section is not yet submitted as an Internet-Draft, so please see: https://cbor-wg.github.io/cddl/#rfc.appendix.E.1 Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Sat May 6 08:33:13 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAA461292F5 for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 08:33:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8] 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 q80Hhf8Ah6dF for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 08:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EBAC129471 for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 08:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [169.254.28.64] (142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id v46FWjmI031600 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 6 May 2017 08:32:46 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176] claimed to be [169.254.28.64] From: "Paul Hoffman" To: "Carsten Bormann" Cc: cbor@ietf.org Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 08:33:12 -0700 Message-ID: <0C426612-AE03-4F5D-89AE-534B5E62E51B@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: <194E71E8-E29D-490A-A17C-163147AB5FDB@tzi.org> References: <194E71E8-E29D-490A-A17C-163147AB5FDB@tzi.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Cbor] Using CDDL with JSON X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 15:33:12 -0000 On 6 May 2017, at 6:34, Carsten Bormann wrote: > The use of CDDL with JSON, as in RFC 8007, always was pretty much > obvious, but never has been described in detail. > > I have written a section on a subset of the prelude that applies to > JSON, also discussing some of the finer points of using CDDL with > JSON. I’d love to hear from people who have experience with this > particular topic. > > The section is not yet submitted as an Internet-Draft, so please see: > > https://cbor-wg.github.io/cddl/#rfc.appendix.E.1 This seems like a good addition, useful to both the CBOR and JSON communities. It needs to be scrutinized by the JSONites, of course. The document is now getting a bit messy with JSON being used in a few disparate places. A thought is to pull them all out, create a short second document for just JSON, and point to it in the introduction to this document. If we do want to leave the JSON examples and definition stuff in this document, it might be better to make them one appendix, and discuss that in the Introduction. --Paul Hoffman From nobody Sat May 6 15:15:36 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 939DE129431 for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 15:15:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 L5964XB1aJL3 for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 15:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31D7812943C for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 15:15:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.201.11]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v46MFSFZ011220; Sun, 7 May 2017 00:15:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from client-0195.vpn.uni-bremen.de (client-0195.vpn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.107.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3wL3403P5dzDHyn; Sun, 7 May 2017 00:15:28 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <0C426612-AE03-4F5D-89AE-534B5E62E51B@vpnc.org> Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 00:15:27 +0200 Cc: cbor@ietf.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 515801727.717998-3128c22457caf1eed75d65bf9dabf2f8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3205E02A-E817-46A6-B6C0-9D9579C7A21A@tzi.org> References: <194E71E8-E29D-490A-A17C-163147AB5FDB@tzi.org> <0C426612-AE03-4F5D-89AE-534B5E62E51B@vpnc.org> To: Paul Hoffman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Cbor] Using CDDL with JSON X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 22:15:34 -0000 On May 6, 2017, at 17:33, Paul Hoffman wrote: >=20 > The document is now getting a bit messy with JSON being used in a few = disparate places. I don=E2=80=99t find that many places =E2=80=9Cusing=E2=80=9D JSON. There is an example based on RFC 7071, which is a JSON format. I think = this is illustrative; there are not that many examples around that are = as simple as RFC 7071 (and which become so convincingly complicated by = trying to tell them in English). Of course, we should now also point at = RFC 8007 for another example. Then there is an example taken from JSON content rules (JCR). JCR is = another definition technique that could theoretically be extended to = also cover all of CBOR; the example here is mostly useful for people who = have looked at JCR. Maybe we can pull out the whole of section 4 (with = the JCR example, RFC 7071, and a small maybe not so useful example about = describing fruit that actually does make use of two CBOR-beyond-JSON = features) and push it into an appendix; this would save 6.5 pages in the = main body. > A thought is to pull them all out, create a short second document for = just JSON, and point to it in the introduction to this document. If we = do want to leave the JSON examples and definition stuff in this = document, it might be better to make them one appendix, and discuss that = in the Introduction. So I seem to tend to the latter. (The really JSON-specific discussion I = just wrote already is in an appendix, albeit a different one, because it = is not an example.) Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Sat May 6 15:35:14 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE711270A3 for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 15:35:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8] 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 WaFEo1XiKnxf for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 15:35:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F18D126BF0 for ; Sat, 6 May 2017 15:35:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [169.254.206.103] (142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id v46MYlHM050857 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 6 May 2017 15:34:48 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org) X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176] claimed to be [169.254.206.103] From: "Paul Hoffman" To: "Carsten Bormann" Cc: cbor@ietf.org Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 15:35:09 -0700 Message-ID: <3DFD908A-7A94-404D-A7E4-FCE7096D4C46@vpnc.org> In-Reply-To: <3205E02A-E817-46A6-B6C0-9D9579C7A21A@tzi.org> References: <194E71E8-E29D-490A-A17C-163147AB5FDB@tzi.org> <0C426612-AE03-4F5D-89AE-534B5E62E51B@vpnc.org> <3205E02A-E817-46A6-B6C0-9D9579C7A21A@tzi.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Cbor] Using CDDL with JSON X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 22:35:13 -0000 On 6 May 2017, at 15:15, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On May 6, 2017, at 17:33, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> >> The document is now getting a bit messy with JSON being used in a few >> disparate places. > > I don’t find that many places “using” JSON. > > There is an example based on RFC 7071, which is a JSON format. I > think this is illustrative; there are not that many examples around > that are as simple as RFC 7071 (and which become so convincingly > complicated by trying to tell them in English). Of course, we should > now also point at RFC 8007 for another example. This example sure feels like "here is a good thing with CDDL". If it is illustrative, then it says "you can do this". > Then there is an example taken from JSON content rules (JCR). JCR is > another definition technique that could theoretically be extended to > also cover all of CBOR; the example here is mostly useful for people > who have looked at JCR. Maybe we can pull out the whole of section 4 > (with the JCR example, RFC 7071, and a small maybe not so useful > example about describing fruit that actually does make use of two > CBOR-beyond-JSON features) and push it into an appendix; this would > save 6.5 pages in the main body. Yep. I'm not worried about making the body shorter; I want the JSON stuff by itself so that it is clearer to readers. > >> A thought is to pull them all out, create a short second document for >> just JSON, and point to it in the introduction to this document. If >> we do want to leave the JSON examples and definition stuff in this >> document, it might be better to make them one appendix, and discuss >> that in the Introduction. > > So I seem to tend to the latter. (The really JSON-specific discussion > I just wrote already is in an appendix, albeit a different one, > because it is not an example.) Sounds fine. --Paul Hoffman From christophe.lohr@cegetel.net Tue May 9 04:47:44 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CE62129B5B for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 04:47:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8] 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 gdtY50e40HD0 for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 04:47:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp26.services.sfr.fr (smtp26.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.163]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6B941201FA for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 04:47:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.29.224.30] (salsa-01.enst-bretagne.fr [192.108.116.64]) by msfrf2601.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id EC01D1C00C49C for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 13:47:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.29.224.30] (salsa-01.enst-bretagne.fr [192.108.116.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: christophe.lohr@cegetel.net) by msfrf2601.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTPSA for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 13:47:39 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: sfr.fr; auth=pass (PLAIN) smtp.auth=christophe.lohr@cegetel.net To: cbor@ietf.org References: <194E71E8-E29D-490A-A17C-163147AB5FDB@tzi.org> <0C426612-AE03-4F5D-89AE-534B5E62E51B@vpnc.org> <3205E02A-E817-46A6-B6C0-9D9579C7A21A@tzi.org> <3DFD908A-7A94-404D-A7E4-FCE7096D4C46@vpnc.org> From: Christophe Lohr Message-ID: <6d9cc3af-d7c4-277d-835b-8413868b8f20@cegetel.net> Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 13:47:38 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3DFD908A-7A94-404D-A7E4-FCE7096D4C46@vpnc.org> X-sfr-mailing: LEGIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 09 May 2017 05:20:21 -0700 Subject: Re: [Cbor] Using CDDL with JSON X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 11:55:46 -0000 Hello, I apologize for my naïve question that may have been dealt with already. Is there any relationship between CDDL an Json-Schemas? http://json-schema.org/documentation.html This seems to share almost the same purpose, isn't it? (with another context (cbor in place of json), other notations, some specificities, etc.) Best regards Christophe From nobody Tue May 9 05:34:04 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F90A129C31 for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 05:34:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 7qbSx32Jt3vt for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 05:34:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC30D129440 for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 05:33:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::b]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v49CXtW3000701; Tue, 9 May 2017 14:33:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [100.64.134.128] (h-213.61.52.86.host.de.colt.net [213.61.52.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3wMf1Z63xzzDHTj; Tue, 9 May 2017 14:33:54 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <6d9cc3af-d7c4-277d-835b-8413868b8f20@cegetel.net> Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 14:33:53 +0200 Cc: cbor@ietf.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 516026033.649753-d531d20937407e7451434a213bd50c87 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <194E71E8-E29D-490A-A17C-163147AB5FDB@tzi.org> <0C426612-AE03-4F5D-89AE-534B5E62E51B@vpnc.org> <3205E02A-E817-46A6-B6C0-9D9579C7A21A@tzi.org> <3DFD908A-7A94-404D-A7E4-FCE7096D4C46@vpnc.org> <6d9cc3af-d7c4-277d-835b-8413868b8f20@cegetel.net> To: Christophe Lohr X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Cbor] Using CDDL with JSON X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 12:34:02 -0000 Hi Christophe, Thank you for your question. > Is there any relationship between CDDL an Json-Schemas? > http://json-schema.org/documentation.html There are several approaches to define JSON data. JSON Schema is one of them, JSON Content Rules (JCR) is another. I don=E2=80=99t think many people expect that one description technique = will be used by everyone. CDDL is focused to be useful in defining the structure protocol messages = based on CBOR=E2=80=99s data model, which is a superset of JSON=E2=80=99s,= so it can be used for JSON as well. A number of IETF documents have = used CDDL for defining JSON data, e.g., RFC 8007. > This seems to share almost the same purpose, isn't it? The approaches behind these description techniques are very different, = even if they have some overlaps in expressive coverage. CDDL is basically a production system (tree grammar), with a syntax = derived from ABNF and some ideas inspired by Relax-NG Compact and JSON = Content Rules. I=E2=80=99m not going to try to describe how that relates to other = approaches, but I can say that I=E2=80=99m quite satisfied with how = useful CDDL has been in defining a number of CBOR- and JSON-based = protocols I have been involved with. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Thu May 18 09:56:51 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6672B129B98 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 09:56:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=filament-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 yiu8tNfkXUho for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 09:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-it0-x22c.google.com (mail-it0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EED012EB4A for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 09:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-it0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id e65so31843052ita.1 for ; Thu, 18 May 2017 09:50:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=filament-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=to:from:subject:cc:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yzkhS/oU0BK7crDewMjcmjH7JS+p/86JRLlDkRxckXc=; b=qR2/DYugGsGcyD3zsDKtzMUcBXlJLWGwhWqKQAQvuKPe0QcgU+qHG2IjZg+mfoyrD3 I2ulqTlYG9EWNUO9we20R1zdhgrDZbPR4gW8vsm2VgEhsMbOF72jvcofuYfc1e0+29ii cvz0DokjlWFLwffxvCrdk9cQ0ML6104PiVme3DwCif74ciojjUhTQpzPscdx6oud5qUr SCSBlGehOi9GcgaWvjfdEL+RXYWGIE0faoVpE2OqUozeU9ZHOme3RNtXcIigxVi4Mwdp 8zgB55XPLySyzkuhLMA7kYVGOb4aRaZB8Tx7w/CzDgCeoL7uUKNX64N3A4NTvGhZD3f2 r/XA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:cc:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yzkhS/oU0BK7crDewMjcmjH7JS+p/86JRLlDkRxckXc=; b=DRZeR4n/8pinLOEN6d0nZSDrKd1kn2j+AAK+PXOopLE4ZI4UizOcJg3ISISNo3HYwn +1BKYb4kEtn9cWpu2Az5Necxb6lZX4e32u6rVuaE6ykAvVHWjZ100D0uXsZcvbFF29aq UdPK3xeFKqH5Ct81FQFzm2G0grR8DPaCU/hKWTM04+PWhL27QT4rubuUWSy5712w/eX3 0tkEcHPSn7kwjWlwOnzin+VwJyxzRuvkx+rmp+KfA1LfUnS7pvz+hqddWZvJqbskepmu Yuk65alCioYAAsMSpktbpMvxqokmJw3sBjoA8kHVj7b2zVpaMbZ0upSZCzP/p0CnhCvB rSew== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCbutrthMfOwatKT4EPutjaAtCyIroqbhsvnJ4TRVvqV1JHizBO iJ1JwvcEE5GWtkyEXURMyQ== X-Received: by 10.36.150.193 with SMTP id z184mr5481280itd.89.1495126235557; Thu, 18 May 2017 09:50:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aither.local ([2601:282:4202:67d3:5008:a309:499a:146f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n22sm2670629itg.25.2017.05.18.09.50.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 May 2017 09:50:34 -0700 (PDT) To: cbor@ietf.org, ace@ietf.org, json@ietf.org, jose@ietf.org From: Peter Saint-Andre - Filament Cc: Jeremie Miller Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:50:33 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: Subject: [Cbor] FYI: JSON Constrained Notation X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 16:56:28 -0000 [Cross-posted to ACE, CBOR, JOSE, JSON because it might be of interest to folks on all four lists.] Folks here might have an interest in an I-D that Jeremie Miller and I just submitted, defining a set of mapping rules from JSON to CBOR that preserves all semantic information. The intent is to use the JOSE standards (and related work such as OpenID Connect) unmodified in constrained environments. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-miller-json-constrained-notation-00 For now, please send feedback directly to the authors. Thanks! Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://filament.com/ From nobody Sun May 28 13:00:46 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cbor@ietf.org Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D681271DF; Sun, 28 May 2017 13:00:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: IETF Meeting Session Request Tool To: Cc: cbor@ietf.org, cbor-chairs@ietf.org, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.51.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149600164455.9446.4619206177840769772.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 13:00:44 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Cbor] cbor - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 99 X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:00:44 -0000 A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Francesca Palombini, a Chair of the cbor working group. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions Area Name: Applications and Real-Time Area Session Requester: Francesca Palombini Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 1.5 Hours Number of Attendees: 50 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: artarea dispatch core ace anima t2trg 6tisch dtn Second Priority: saag webpush sacm lpwan httpbis dots lwig roll Third Priority: detnet dnsop appsawg People who must be present: Joe Hildebrand Francesca Palombini Resources Requested: Special Requests: ---------------------------------------------------------