Re: Investigation of Existing Encoding Formats

On 2021-01-27 23:09, Garret Rieger wrote:
>
>
>     CBOR (Concise Binary Object Representation)
>
> CBOR - Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBOR>, rfc8949 
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8949>
>
I agree that CBOR looks like a good candidate; standardized, multiple 
implementations.

It would perhaps be wise to encode some sample transactions in CBOR and 
in the originally proposed custom encoding, just to check that the 
overall sizes are comparable. But assuming that checks out, this does 
look like the best choice from the options you listed.

Ah, I notice that this is one of the more modern RFCs which is also 
available as-authored in html, as well as the traditional IETF "looks 
like a lineprinter" format.

Compare

   https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8949

and

   https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8949.html

Oh cool, specref already has this

   https://api.specref.org/bibrefs?refs=rfc8949

so a reference in the bikeshed like [[rfc8949]] will work correctly.


-- 
Chris Lilley
@svgeesus
Technical Director @ W3C
W3C Strategy Team, Core Web Design
W3C Architecture & Technology Team, Core Web & Media