RFC 9171, "Bundle Protocol Version 7", January 2022

Errata ID: 7881
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: John Huff
Date Reported: 2024-04-03
Held for Document Update by: Erik Kline
Date Held: 2024-04-07

Section 6.1.1 says:

   The first element of each bundle status item SHALL be a status
   indicator, a Boolean value indicating whether or not the
   corresponding bundle status is asserted, encoded as a CBOR Boolean
   value.

It should say:

   The first element of each bundle status item SHALL be a status
   indicator, a Boolean value indicating whether or not the
   corresponding bundle status is asserted, encoded as a CBOR simple
   value.  A value of 'true' SHALL be encoded as a CBOR simple value
   with additional information 21.  A value of 'false' SHALL be encoded
   as a CBOR simple value with additional information 20.

Notes:

The CBOR spec does not define a 'Boolean' type (RFC8949). It's become common practice to encode boolean values as simple values (major type 7), with additional information 21 indicating 'true' and additional information 20 indicating 'false' (RFC9254, RFC8152). However, this should be explicitly stated for clarity.

--- comments ---

The original text refers to "Boolean values" and not to any "Boolean type"; it is technically correct as is.

As noted, CBOR doesn't have a specific "type" per se for a Boolean, but RFC 8948 S3.3 clearly specifies an encoding for `true` and `false`.

That said, there might be room here for additional clarity for implementers if there is ever to be a 9171bis.

Report New Errata