-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 2:11 AM
To: Jim Schaad <[email protected]>; 'The IESG' <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; 'Matthew Miller' <[email protected]>; Benjamin
Kaduk <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Robert Wilton's No Objection on
draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-10: (with COMMENT)
Hi Jim,
Please see inline ...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Schaad <[email protected]>
> Sent: 14 June 2020 23:10
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>; 'The IESG'
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; 'Matthew Miller' <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: Robert Wilton's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-
> struct-10: (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 11:05 AM
> To: The IESG <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Matthew Miller <[email protected]>;
> [email protected]
> Subject: Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-
> struct-10: (with COMMENT)
>
> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-10: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
> this introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I've only reviewed the diffs, not the historical approved text.
> Everything looks okay to me. A few minor comments/nits:
>
> Comment:
>
> 1.4. CBOR Grammar
>
> The CDDL grammar is informational; the prose description is normative.
>
> I'm not familiar with the CDDL grammar, and specifically whether there
> is any tooling that can use the grammar to generate structures/etc.
> If there is, then I think that it would be helpful if the CDDL grammar
> was also normative, in the sense that readers of the spec should be
> able to assume that the CDDL is correct. I would still be okay with a
> statement that says that if there is any ambiguity between the two
> then the prose description should be taken as being definitive.
> [JLS] I am not aware of any tools today that can be used to generate
> code form CDDL although I believe it is only a matter of time until they
> exist.
> The current tools allow one to validate that a CBOR encoded object
> does or does not match the CDDL. I have used these tools to do
> validation, but since I have not used tools for generation I am not
> sure what to do. It is my firm belief that the text and the CDDL are
> both the same. The reason that the CDDL is not normative is not
> because of this, but because I am not willing yet to have a normative
> dependency on the CDDL document.
[RW]
You need a normative reference on the CDDL document regardless, given that it
is not possible to understand the entirety of draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct
without reading the CDDL draft, hence it is a normative reference. The only
alternative would be to strip all the CDDL text out of the document, and I
really doubt that you would want to do that.
Even if tools are just being used for validation then you still require the
CDDL to be right or otherwise the validation could give an incorrect response.
Hence, I would recommend that you bite the bullet, add the normative reference,
and make the CDDL text normative. Given that CDDL has already been published
as an RFC, I'm unsure why having a normative reference to it would be a problem.
[JLS] Section 1.4 is designed to avoid the need for CDDL to be normative. Also
since the CDDL is explicitly normative I do not believe that it needs to be
normative.
I am still under the impression that one needs to look very closely at STD
downrefs as well as Standards Track downrefs is that not true?
Jim
Regards,
Rob
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
