Re: [Cbor] Record proposal

[Kris Zyp <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for the update, I appreciate it! And I am happy to hear that
Packed CBOR is continuing to progress. I found the referenced slide,
and appreciate the reference. I see it also mentioned the need for
independent implementations of packed. Hopefully cbor-x is helpful in
regards to having an independent implementation for testing (I believe
it is the only JS implementation of cbor-packed)? If you want any help
testing this against the output or input of other implementations,
would be happy to help with that. Anyway, again, this is great to see;
packing and record structure tags are quite distinct, but definitely
complementary in bringing more efficient encodings!

I certainly understand that any standardization efforts take a lot of
time, and don't want to rush all you who are very busy, I'm sure. I
really just wanted to verify that the record tag registration
submission was on the correct track. I think there are about 100
entries in the tag registry (across a dozen or so specifications), and
I want to make sure the record tag submission (submitted as
https://github.com/kriszyp/cbor-records using the template from RFC
8949 per the registry) is in line with the protocol used for tag
registrations and is on the correct track. Is it fair to say that the
registry status of the record tag/tag 105/26880-27135 is that it has a
submitted registration proposal and under review? And from what I
understand from the registry's explanation of registration procedures,
since this is not a tag in the 0-23 range, it does not involve any
actual IETF standards work, but rather just requires the submitted
specification, presumably for review and approval. Is that a
reasonable understanding of the current status of record tag
registration, or did you have different intentions for this?

> Hope to see you there

Did you want me to attend a meeting for discussion of this?

Anyway, thank you again for all your efforts on CBOR, greatly appreciated!

Thanks,
Kris