On Aug 13, 2013, at 13:14, Tony Finch wrote:
> MessagePack is simpler so will need even less code
FWIW, earlier today I had a nice afternoon with the msgpack-ruby C code,
converting it to encoding and decoding CBOR instead.
Saved ~ 250 lines of C code.
Of course, I'm filling in that gap now b
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 8/13/2013 3:20 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>
>> One of the reasons why I like the CBOR tag applied to a byte stream is
>> that
>> it can be used to skip parsing on entire sections (no matter their
>> underlying types) in processors that don'
> "Black," == Black, David writes:
Black,> [A] Overall - I would like to see a paragraph added on how
Black,> this database conceptually relates to the IPsec Peer
Black,> Authorization Database (PAD) - see RFC 4301, section 4.4.3.
It doesn't.
not even a little bit.
It's not IPse
David, as we mentioned in the IESG thread, we seem to have dropped the
response to your comments about IANA actions.
WG:
>From the genart review:
[9] I suggest Expert Review for the new IANA registries, not just
First Come First Served, so that someone with a security "clue" can
check that the
On 08/13/2013 09:03 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
At 15:14 12-08-2013, Graham Klyne wrote:
But, in a personal capacity, not as designated reviewer, I have to
ask *why* this needs to be a URI. As far as I can tell, it is
intended for use only in very constrained environments, where there
seems to be
On 08/13/2013 12:14 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call: (URI
Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to
Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consi
This is a call for review of "List of Internet Official Protocol Standards:
Replaced by an Online Database" prior to potential approval as an IAB stream
RFC.
The document is available for inspection here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rfced-rfcxx00-retired/
The Call for Review will la
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:07 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2013, at 13:40, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>> YANG seems to be incompatible with CBOR.
>>
>> so what does that say about yang, yang's suitability for netconf, cbor,
>> and cbor's suitability?
>
> Good question. I'm not sure the jury
Hi Andy,
Please see Carsten's mail on this subject.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 2013-08-14 18:18, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
Hi Randy,
I prefer to leave this question to people who know something about Netconf,
i.e. not me.
But let me just say t
On 8/13/2013 3:20 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
One of the reasons why I like the CBOR tag applied to a byte stream is
that
it can be used to skip parsing on entire sections (no matter their
underlying types) in processors that don't need to understand that section.
This is an example of the core
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> Hi Randy,
>
> I prefer to leave this question to people who know something about Netconf,
> i.e. not me.
>
> But let me just say that, based on my thoroughly extensive 5-min. research,
> YANG seems to be incompatible with CBOR.
>
Can you be
On Aug 14, 2013, at 13:40, Randy Bush wrote:
>> YANG seems to be incompatible with CBOR.
>
> so what does that say about yang, yang's suitability for netconf, cbor,
> and cbor's suitability?
Good question. I'm not sure the jury is even out on that yet.
Yaron reminded me that netconf is using
> YANG seems to be incompatible with CBOR.
so what does that say about yang, yang's suitability for netconf, cbor,
and cbor's suitability?
randy
- Original Message -
From: "Ted Lemon"
To: "John Levine"
Cc: "IETF Discussion Mailing List"
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:03 PM
> On Aug 13, 2013, at 9:51 AM, John Levine wrote:
> > There's no great way
> > to send around a redlined document and I'd say that Word formats are
> > curr
Hi Randy,
I prefer to leave this question to people who know something about
Netconf, i.e. not me.
But let me just say that, based on my thoroughly extensive 5-min.
research, YANG seems to be incompatible with CBOR.
Thanks,
Yaron
On 2013-08-14 04:53, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
Fr
This was a rather productive IETF Last Call!
Thank you all for the many comments.
Paul and I have taken your comments and believe that we have
incorporated the ones that we said we would.
The -05 has just been published:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-cbor-05
... and there are lot
16 matches
Mail list logo
