Re: [apps-discuss] Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <> Fri, 24 May 2013 23:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E715121F944F for <>; Fri, 24 May 2013 16:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.566
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qXvVEe+dQ8Kp for <>; Fri, 24 May 2013 16:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 211AB21F9408 for <>; Fri, 24 May 2013 16:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2280; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1369437125; x=1370646725; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=XU+MS5rUhNMsPrWvO7mQYHfKqD/tc9Yv4eRrnId45cg=; b=JSM2NjGCfqgi/RtyOD6oCmM4h4qKoPBezHRpdSVlvbTfBNI6ENuhFhHP yIRo8xE/oDcrZ6TKpx/JNxgIkZU8o+JNpLrogHMZ1x7KD9pTqj2YQGyU0 ReyxYndK4zphh6CbDeUr5k1mGSYPueaZRvcKXAvBd1Oco48Wxy5BrFkLz w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,738,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="214899523"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 24 May 2013 23:12:04 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4ONC4Fa001178 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 24 May 2013 23:12:04 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 24 May 2013 18:12:03 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
Thread-Index: AQHOWNQZiTw2u1cw4kycF0Qz96eKPA==
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 23:11:33 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: " Discuss" <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 23:12:11 -0000


I think your email is out of line and that behavior like this is the largest threat to the IETF begin relevant in the future. If we treat people like this, they are going to take their work elsewhere. I've talked to people about why they don't bring standards work to the IETF and the list of reasons why is surpassingly short and pretty well illustrated by this thread. 

More inline …

On May 23, 2013, at 2:14 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <> wrote:

> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Paul Hoffman <> wrote:
> On May 23, 2013, at 11:35 AM, James M Snell <> wrote:
> > That's well and good, from everything I've seen so far in this thread,
> > the collective majority opinion can be summarized as "Ugh... Groan..
> > Another one? Really?"
> Just a note that this is one of the only ones that people are groaning about that has an Internet Draft and might go through the IETF consensus process. Carsten and I (maybe naively) thought that doing this in this environment, instead of say posting ephemeral specs on a web page and not having it be clear where the community fit it, was a good thing.
> I don't remember you being appointed to address the issue. 

Actually, I think you, and the rest of the IETF did appoint them. We encourage people to bring good technical work and discuss it. Clearly binary encodings is an important topic for IETF protocols - This seems like a perfectly reasonable list to bring the email discussion to. 

> Since almost all the response to your proposal has been that people don't like your design choices, and since you make it abundantly clear that you are not interested in our input, I can't quite see where a consensus is going to come. Unless that is the consensus is that your proposal sucks.

That was not my read of the thread so far. 

> I would certainly object to a format that was counted being granted any degree of IETF recognition lest someone try to force me to use it in the future.

This is not BCP that must be used by all future IETF protocols. It's an option for work that gets consensus to use it.