IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05.txt

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 13 July 2021 07:43 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 26E5D3A1BC8 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 00:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 bpmcWBcOo13W for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 00:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C93573A1BA6 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 00:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p548dcc89.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4GPCL60YDwz2xHY; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:43:26 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <e5b0ff00-a7be-a4a4-8250-63d95270029f@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:43:25 +0200
Cc: cbor@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5F039F74-D5C0-4C56-9719-DD320C3CAE0A@tzi.org>
References: <162608928922.11086.12172415971165753394@ietfa.amsl.com> <e5b0ff00-a7be-a4a4-8250-63d95270029f@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.100.0.2.22)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/6BqK5_jrqyz4JelJNbZ8Uwp3kV0>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05.txt
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 07:43:33 -0000

On 12. Jul 2021, at 22:36, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Would it be useful to formally deprecate tags 260 and 261?

We don’t have a process for that.

Other IETF registries are more actively curated, with “recommended” columns and some such.

The intention of the “Notable Tags” document was indeed to contain such guidance, but separate from the registry.
(Now I still have to find time to flesh that out some more…)

Grüße, Carsten

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status