From nobody Tue Sep 22 14:45:58 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B97F33A1A0F for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:45:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.919 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o21TS0ade2om for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E97FC3A1A0A for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:45:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcc60.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Bwvxp2N5FzyVb; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:45:50 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <2766F4E6-0E67-472B-8BFA-75C529F4EE80@tzi.org> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:45:49 +0200 X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 622503949.8158211-1e30bf56deac1dc9e267477f0ea61ce0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4F091AD9-7D9C-4F0E-9D92-EE2652FD2599@tzi.org> References: <2766F4E6-0E67-472B-8BFA-75C529F4EE80@tzi.org> To: cbor@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Cbor] 7049bis: Diagnostic notation gaps X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 21:45:55 -0000 On 2020-09-11, at 22:46, Carsten Bormann wrote: >=20 > Should we add this to 7049bis (which would be new functionality) or = should we do this in a separate document? > (We did this for other diagnostic notation extensions, which are = listed in RFC 8610.) I think we now have a clear way forward for diagnostic notation for both = 5fff/7fff and NaN payloads. The former ostensibly has not really been a gap in RFC 7049, so we could = address it in a clarification in 7049bis. The latter is a new invention and so cannot really part of 7049bis, = which is slated for Internet Standard and needs to meet the spirit of = RFC 6410, which says: Minor revisions and the removal of unused features are expected, but a significant revision may require that the specification accumulate more experience at Proposed Standard before progressing. Extending diagnostic notation is not a significant revision in that it = will shatter the CBOR universe, but it is still new untested code that = really should be in a separate document. I would therefore like to close #204 and #205 now, and (if we want to = treat 5fff/7fff as a clarification) add a small pull request for just = that. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten