[Anima] Fwd: [Cbor] Protocol Action: 'Concise data definition language (CDDL): a notational convention to express CBOR and JSON data structures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-08.txt)

Hi,

FYI this announcement is good news for ANIMA. It satisfies one of the
two missing references for the GRASP RFC. The other one is the ACP draft.
(For details see https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C325)

   Brian

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [Cbor] Protocol Action: 'Concise data definition language (CDDL): a notational convention to express CBOR and JSON data structures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-08.txt)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 05:41:09 -0700
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: cbor@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, barryleiba@computer.org, cbor-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cbor-cddl@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Concise data definition language (CDDL): a notational convention to
   express CBOR and JSON data structures'
  (draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-08.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Concise Binary Object Representation
Maintenance and Extensions Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Adam Roach, Alexey Melnikov and Ben Campbell.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-cddl/

Technical Summary

   This document proposes a notational convention to express CBOR data
   structures (RFC 7049).  Its main goal is to provide an easy and
   unambiguous way to express structures for protocol messages and data
   formats that use CBOR or JSON.

Working Group Summary

  The CBOR working group has been working on the CDDL definition for about
  a year, and has had productive, healthy discussion that's led to the
  current document.  There is quite wide deployment of CBOR and a lot of
  interesting in the definition language that's proposed here.  As is
  typical, we had a core set of maybe half a dozen very active
  participants, with quite a few others chiming in occasionally.  The
  document shepherd thinks the interest and contribution has been robust.

  There are no significant disagreements that remain, and there's solid
  working group consensus on what's here now.  There have been
  disagreements about how to represent particular things, but they have
  been cleanly resolved and none are important to note here.  I'll call out
  the latest one, as it's just come up: at the end of working group last
  call, Jim Schaad raised an issue on the mailing list about an ambiguity
  that affects automated parser generation.  After discussion on the
  working group telechat, Carsten proposed text that clarifies that syntax
  alone may not always be sufficient to understand the meaning of a name,
  and that semantics of the name must be understood.

Document Quality

   Multiple existing IETF documents are already using CDDL for specifying wire encodings.
   There are several implementations of CBOR parsers/generators.

Personnel

   Barry Leiba is the document shepherd and
   Alexey Melnikov is the responsible AD.

_______________________________________________
CBOR mailing list
CBOR@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor