[Cbor] Re: Rebooting the naming discussion (Re: EDN file extension (Re: registrations before WGLC Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-23.txt))

[Vadim Goncharov <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 4 May 2026 23:53:35 +0200
Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On May 4, 2026, at 23:35, Vadim Goncharov <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Suddenly I've realized that CDN/diag are for 7049 version and now we have
> > EDN (btw, with incompatible changes).  
> 
> Nobody(*) uses the pure RFC 8949 version (yes, we essentially copied Section
> 8 of RFC 8949 from Section 6 of RFC 7049, updating the reference to JSON and
> explaining “”_/‘'_) any more.
> 
> But it is really good to keep the lineage together.
> They are all called CBOR diagnostic notation over time, which is one reason
> may may not want to innnovate on the name — we want to stop using old old
> pure 8949 Section 8 diagnostic notation or old pure 8949/8610 Appendix G
> diagnostic notation. There is no “choice” between old old, old, or modern.
> Modern CDN is just the same thing, updated for the 2020s and the following
> decades.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> (*) Of course, we can’t possibly know that as a fact, but we clearly are on
> a trajectory where that is the case and we want to help along on that
> trajectory.

So this just means that we will not use .cdn for it. Given that draft, and
thus eventually RFC, is titled "CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation", this four
words result in .cedn - very simple resolution, I think.

-- 
WBR, @nuclight