Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Typed Arrays
RFC 8746
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Éric Vyncke Yes
Based on Henk Birkholz's review for the IoT directorate. Thank you Carsten for this well-written and concise ;-) document and thank you Henk for the review. -éric
Alvaro Retana No Objection
Roman Danyliw No Objection
Section 1.1. Per “this document uses the notation familiar from the programming language C” and subsequent reference in Section 3.1, please provide a reference to the relevant C standard. Section 3.2. Please provide a reference for a version of C++. Section 8.2. Per [TypedArray], please provide a URL or more complete citation
(Adam Roach; former steering group member) (was No Objection) Yes
§2.1: > | s | 0 for unsigned integer or float, 1 for signed integer | This is a very minor comment, since it is clear from the remainder of the document, but this would be a bit easier to read as "0 for float or unsigned integer, 1 for signed integer" (thereby making it clear that "unsigned" is not intended to apply to "float").
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) Yes
[TypedArrayES6] - this should be a Normative reference due to definition of Clamped arithmetic.
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Benjamin Kaduk; former steering group member) No Objection
Section 3.1.2 I don't think we can get away with defining column-major order implicitly by example and comparison to row-major order. This is particularly poingiant given that we do not limit ourselves to two-dimensional arrays. Section 7 I'm not sure that I understand the scenariao described by "an attacker might substitute a Uint8ClampedArray" and how an application would get unexpected processing semantics, but the general sentiment it indicates of "applications need to verify any expectations they have" seems important to cover. Section 8.2 I couldn't find a document to go with [TypedArray]; the one promising-looking search result ended up just redirecting me to [TypedArrayES6].
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Vigoureux; former steering group member) No Objection
Hello,
thank you for this document. I have a minor question.
IEEE 754 binary floating numbers are always signed. Therefore, for
the float variants ("f" == 1), there is no need to distinguish
between signed and unsigned variants; the "s" bit is always zero.
Since IEEE 754 binary floating numbers are always signed, I would have thought that s=1 would be used in conjunction with f=1. For my understanding, what was the reason for choosing s=0 instead?
Thank you