> On Apr 29, 2019, at 12:00 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 08:55:53AM -0700, RFC Errata System wrote: >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8392, >> "CBOR Web Token (CWT)". >> >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5710 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Technical >> Reported by: Felipe Gasper <[email protected]> >> >> Section: 1.1 >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> In JSON, maps are called objects and only have one kind of map key: a >> string. CBOR uses strings, negative integers, and unsigned integers >> as map keys. >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> In JSON, maps are called objects and only have one kind of map key: >> a string. CBOR allows other data types, such as strings, negative >> integers, and unsigned integers, as map keys. >> >> Notes >> ----- >> The text as it stands risks an interpretation that CBOR limits map keys to >> integers and strings; per discussion on the CBOR mailing list, this is not >> the case. > > I see the CBOR list traffic in the archive (e.g., > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/LyndIfQipxUfx0cu6nlOwi6ceOY) and > agree with the sentiment that the CWT spec should not inadvertently > over-specify the behavior of CBOR > > The proposed new text is itself flawed, though, as it claims that strings > are an "other data type" with respect to strings.
Ah, agreed. Is there a way I can update my proposed phrase? The editor only seems to allow submission of a new erratum. It may be worth disambiguating between binary and UTF-8 strings, too; JSON only allows UTF-8 strings, while CBOR also allows binary. -F _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
