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

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On May 22, 2013, at 20:43, James M Snell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Best bet: define the syntax, provide a couple of great open source
> implementations, let people know about them.. then time will tell
> whether it'll be worthwhile to standardize. There shouldn't be any
> rush on getting an RFC done.

Of course, the degree of success of a technical specification is dominated by external effects, such as the highly random process in which it is picked up by implementers.

What I am trying to do here is just provide a very good specification.

Good marketing, open-source reference implementations, TED speaking engagements, articles in Network World, pickup by CPU vendors that put in useful instructions for generating/parsing it, cloud services, funding for related research etc. (in other words, mindshare) comes after that.  

However, this is a specification that could (and should) be used by other specifications that the IETF and other organizations will be creating.  So saying "you can have the RFC after the first TED talk" is not helping those other specifications along.

(This is not an argument against running code, just against "let the market decide on whatever and then standardize".)

Grüße, Carsten