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

Reply via email to