On Jul 30, 2019, at 19:10, Jim Schaad <i...@augustcellars.com> wrote: > From: Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> > > We should be consistent across examples about whether the use of CBOR > diagnostic notation also requires a disclaimer about "with linebreaks for > readability". > > [JLS] I don't believe that this disclaimer needs to be present. Unlike the > JSON document where what is being presented is in fact JSON, what is being > presented here is simply a more user friendly readable version of the binary > data.
Right. But it is still useful for the reader to be able to look up how that notation works. CBOR diagnostic notation was originally defined in Section 6 of RFC 7049, precisely for the purpose of discussing CBOR data items in a human-readable way. Many current documents make use of some extensions of the original diagnostic notation, such as the use of whitespace in hex strings. These extensions are documented in Appendix G of RFC 8610, Extended Diagnostic Notation (EDN). This is what always should be referenced, and then no disclaimer is needed. Grüße, Carsten PS.: > (A different question would be if the hex should be presented but > that is not what the ACE group is doing in general.) I don’t think that showing a hex representation of the encoded bytes is needed either; CBOR should be well-known enough to readers of this document via CWT already. _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace