This isn't yet definitive because I don't have everything I need on vacation with me, but
> So the packet decode you captured is right I think I agree with Carsten. In CDDL, +[something] generates [something1],[something2],[something3], and not [[something1],[something2],[something3]]. Nesting is hard. That's why a CDDL-driven parser would be a great thing to have. Regards Brian On 14-Dec-20 10:08, Carsten Bormann wrote: > You forced me to get a bigger screen... > > I don’t know what you are trying to say here: > >> On 13. Dec 2020, at 20:43, Michael Richardson <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I guess I'm still confused by why this is: >> [ [objective1],[locator2-option], [objective2],[locator2-option],...] >> >> and not: >> [ [objective1, locator2-option], [objective2, locator2-option],...] >> >> or maybe: >> [ [[objective1], [locator2-option]], [[objective2], [locator2-option]],…] > > An objective already is an array, so there is little point in putting array > brackets around one. > > [foo, bar, baz, bat, [obj1, loc1]] > > Is a valid instance as is > > [foo, bar, baz, bat, [obj1, loc1], [obj2, loc2]] > > So the packet decode you captured is right, and the version with the added > one-element array (0x81) does not match the CDDL. > > (Both obj1 and loc1 are four-element arrays in your example.) > > Grüße, Carsten > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
