Re: [Cbor] Adam Roach's Block on charter-ietf-cbor-01-01: (with BLOCK)

Adam Roach <> Tue, 02 July 2019 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08EF120394; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 09:17:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.678
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3oT3WK1PO0DJ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 09:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F1F112047D; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 09:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2607:fb90:408a:cc9e:d887:fc1:944a:77d0] ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x62GGtSd090148 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 2 Jul 2019 11:17:04 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=default; t=1562084226; bh=HSxQt3H/2lF9xlAQa0/ksMknVejo6NlehFoZF+r8oek=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=NpCMXL5eaN5RTGfrsfA2fx8ow6++PF/tfMTc+zQQ++/o4s6UioOj5JvZEHD68xCvE wdwS0HA+3GMKIfEsiW0wmhxs31kPxmREKVANU1EDxOnJT9Sm46PaxnCu7GLkOcRv3I +w9+VRpBgn6gWJBFTTtFR6eXBWEgW7VeJWOQRs28=
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be [IPv6:2607:fb90:408a:cc9e:d887:fc1:944a:77d0]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Adam Roach <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16F203)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 12:16:48 -0400
Cc: Carsten Bormann <>,, The IESG <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Alexey Melnikov <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Adam Roach's Block on charter-ietf-cbor-01-01: (with BLOCK)
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, 02 Jul 2019 16:17:34 -0000

Okay — I’m happy with the level of consideration that’s happened here. I merely wanted to ensure the possibility had been considered. I’ll clear.


> On Jul 2, 2019, at 10:37, Alexey Melnikov <> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, at 6:53 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> Hi Adam,
>> these are very good questions indeed.
>> As you may have noticed, the rescoping beyond IoT is not just happening 
>> to CDDL.
>> CBOR is now being used in a wide variety of specifications that have 
>> varying aspects of IoTness to them, e.g., consider WebAuthn and CTAP2.  
>> This is also visible in the set of people who are contributing.
>> So I don’t think the rechartered CBOR WG as proposed will be an obscure 
>> IoT only working group.
> I agree that use of CBOR is not limited to IoT space. I struggle to make this any clearer in the charter text. Adam, do you think anything needs to change/ can be improved here?
>> Of the three jobs of the rechartered WG, the CBORbis part has the 
>> shortest timeline.
>> Once that is finished, we are left with CDDL and the Tags documents 
>> (and occasional media type documents).  While Tags are specific to 
>> CBOR, they also could be viewed as a component model that will 
>> increasingly be used in CDDL as well.  The more general purpose (or 
>> internet-wide) Tags documents that would be worked on by the WG would 
>> flow together with the desire to componentize CDDL.
>> With respect to the broader field of “schema languages”, the extreme 
>> version of your proposal would be to merge into one WG the existing 
>> netmod WG (the work on YANG), the CDDL work of the CBOR WG, and the 
>> various approaches to data modeling being discussed on the JSON WG 
>> mailing list right now.  Clearly, data modeling has become an important 
>> aspect of the field of protocol development.  But that does not mean 
>> all that work needs to be in one WG.  The constituents are overlapping, 
>> but mostly distinct: operations and management, application layer and 
>> security protocol design, application API development.
>> Creating a new “data modeling for JSON and friends” WG would send a 
>> signal that we take the data modeling area more seriously.  But it 
>> would also defocus from the evolution of CDDL as one description 
>> technique in this space; it seems to me that the current approach of 
>> evolving a number of coherent designs in a competitive manner is 
>> ultimately more productive.
>> A pure CDDL working group would certainly work, but would leave the 
>> work on Tags on the sidelines — keeping a CBOR working group just for 
>> the Tags work (once CBORbis is completed) doesn’t seem to make a lot of 
>> sense, and we want to achieve a higher degree of integration between 
>> components work and language work anyway.
> Considering size of the WG, people involved and the fact that CBOR model is more complex than JSON, so it is more likely to affect CDDL, I think it makes sense to keep both CBOR and any possible CDDL extensions in one place.
>> So I think the charter proposal has it about right, with the possible 
>> exception of the need for a signal that this WG is not just about IoT 
>> any more.  But that signal can be outside the charter.
> Agreed.
> Best Regards,
> Alexey
>> Grüße, Carsten
>>> On Jun 26, 2019, at 05:59, Adam Roach via Datatracker <> wrote:
>>> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
>>> charter-ietf-cbor-01-01: Block
>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> BLOCK:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> This is a "DISCUSS-discuss" style block, in the spirit of backing up and making
>>> sure we're making the right overall decision here.
>>> I'd like us to have a short conversation about whether it makes sense for the
>>> CDDL work to continue in the CBOR working group. Given that it has been
>>> rescoped and renamed to be a more general-purpose schema language covering not
>>> just CBOR, but the much broader JSON universe, it seems that this work is
>>> extremely likely to have a broad constituency outside of those people who
>>> typically participate in working groups that focus on IoT use-cases. Keeping it
>>> part of CBOR does not seem to serve that community well.
>>> Should we consider splitting the CDDL update and maintenance work off into a
>>> separate working group, rather than rechartering CBOR with the rather
>>> significant expansion considered in this charter proposal?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CBOR mailing list