Re: [Cbor] Rechartering Process
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 18 June 2019 20:34 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 202DE1202CF for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 swDoZrtpqJbP for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.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 5E80712019C for <cbor@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.113] (p54A6CA4C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.166.202.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45T0DB0s5jzySM; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 22:34:02 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <008d01d510cc$47b932f0$d72b98d0$@augustcellars.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 22:34:01 +0200
Cc: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 582582839.558086-fb1f2b70aee8154bd7e723505e25e3d2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DD8D0E75-64C0-4382-A9B4-A4D9111A4F14@tzi.org>
References: <008d01d510cc$47b932f0$d72b98d0$@augustcellars.com>
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/GPeVh5V_ZbbmFfWnsgebwt9-ujk>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Rechartering Process
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, 18 Jun 2019 20:34:07 -0000
A few minor comments on the current charter text in https://github.com/cbor-wg/charter/blob/master/charter-01.md : > Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) extends the JavaScript > Object Notation (JSON, RFC 7159) data interchange format to include binary > data and an extensibility model, using a binary representation format that > is easy to parse correctly. It has been picked up by a number of IETF > efforts (e.g., CORE, ANIMA GRASP) as a message format. I don’t think we need to give examples any more, so I think we can get rid of the parenthesis in the last sentence. > The CBOR working group will update RFC 7049 to fix verified errata. Security > issues and clarifications may be addressed, but changes to the document will > ensure backward compatibility for popular deployed codebases. The resulting > document will be targeted at becoming a Full Internet Standard. After that, > the CBOR working group will monitor issues found with the CBOR specification > and, if needed, will produce an updated document. > > Similar to the way ABNF (RFC 5234/7405) can be used to describe the set of > valid messages in a text representation, it is useful for protocol > specifications to use a description format for the data in CBOR-encoded > messages. The Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) is such a description > technique that has already been used in CORE, ANIMA, CDNI, and efforts > outside the IETF. > > CDDL has been published as RFC XXXX. While this specification has been > completed, several new features were raised during the update process that > were not included, in order not to delay publication, and to allow > publication in the Standards Track. One example of such a feature is the > ability to combine multiple CDDL files together using a mechanism other that > manually concatenating them together for processing. The working group will > collect these features as well as other features that are raised by users of > CDDL, evaluate their utility and add to a second edition of the > specification if warranted. (The number is now known :-) > The working group will define the approach to further evolving CDDL as a > sequence of editions, which might also add further extension points, > probably as part of the introduction of the next edition of the CDDL base > specification. The body of existing specifications that make use of CDDL is > considered precious, and the WG will set out not to damage their value. > > The working group will evaluate the necessity of providing advice and > guidance for developers using CBOR and CDDL. It is currently expected that > this would be done using a Wiki of some type. This work would not be > expected to be published by the IETF. > > There are a number of additional CBOR tagged types that are either currently > adopted by the working group, by other working groups, or as individual > submissions. Additionally, there are expected to be other such documents > that will come to the attention of the working group. In some cases, the > working group expects to adopt and publish these proposals. > > The working group will evaluate and place proposals in one of the following > categories using a dispatch like process: > > * General purpose tagged types that are expected to have broad usage: The > working group will normally adopt and publish such proposals. Examples of > proposals in this category are CBOR Sequence (draft-bormann-cbor-sequence) > and Error Indications (draft-richter-cbor-error-tag). The CBOR sequence is not really a CBOR tagged type (even though it could be used as such in a byte string) as a new media type using CBOR in a slightly different way than application/cbor is used. > * Internet wide specific purpose tagged types: The working group may > decide to adopt these proposals, but typically it would just provide input > and recommend that they be published either as an Independent Submission or > by a different working group. > > * Narrow purpose tagged types: The working group may provide evaluation > of such proposals, but typically would not support Working Group adoption, > and could recommend publication in a different forum. An example of this > might be portions of draft-bormann-cbor-tags-oid dealing with some of the > more esoteric types such as regular expressions Period :-). Grüße, Carsten
- [Cbor] Rechartering Process Jim Schaad
- Re: [Cbor] Rechartering Process Carsten Bormann