CBOR usage choices: Map keys (int vs string, fp vs int etc)
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 19
- Forks
- 3
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
This Issue is tracking what syntax we use in throughout the protocol in CBOR (split from #5 )
Things that we should be considering:
- On-the-wire Size
- Developer ergonomics
- Ease of mapping to JSON
Map Keys:
The current proposed draft does the following:
Normatively defined keys are all int values. Extensions are String values.
This provides the most compact serialization and provides collision resistance for extensions out of the box.
Some downsides:
- Needs more expansive tooling for debugging and read/writing requests (as keys aren't naturally)
- Needs some mechanism to convert ints for JSON and a way to resolve collisions
In addition to this there are other questions:
How to represent bytestring, tags, fp etc
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
No files, tests, or implementation entry points are identified. Start by reviewing the proposed draft and the open questions in this issue, then document agreed choices for CBOR map keys and representations of bytestrings, tags, and floating-point values, with decisions addressing size, developer ergonomics, and JSON mapping.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- backend-api-design
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100