Re: [Cbor] CBOR tag range IANA allocation policy

Jim Schaad <> Fri, 26 July 2019 12:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D391202E0 for <>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 05:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lEjFAjKdtB8s for <>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 05:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BA3312029A for <>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 05:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 05:21:56 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <>
To: 'Carsten Bormann' <>, 'Sean Leonard' <>
CC: 'Thiago Macieira' <>, 'Ira McDonald' <>, <>
References: <> <10096467.9kdZcmANtY@tjmaciei-mobl1> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 08:21:53 -0400
Message-ID: <045601d543ac$b79f3d40$26ddb7c0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQI1+RqtKmMqPa99WI8bvfzd2IMJ1QHaPyU6AaIhjlIC19vEzQKJvFsIpdR2lvA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: []
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] CBOR tag range IANA allocation policy
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: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 12:22:06 -0000

I think that RFC Required might be overkill.  As this is a specification required, there is already a requirement for Expert Review as well.  The easier thing might be to add language to the reviewer instructions along the lines of:

Reviewers should be reluctant to assign code points in the 24-255 range to specifications that are not RFC documents.  In the event that it is deemed wise to assign such a point anyway the CBOR working group mailing list should be advised of this and allowed to give input over a short period of time (in the order of 3-5 days).


-----Original Message-----
From: CBOR <> On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 6:25 PM
To: Sean Leonard <>
Cc: Thiago Macieira <>om>; Ira McDonald <>om>;
Subject: Re: [Cbor] CBOR tag range IANA allocation policy

On Jul 25, 2019, at 18:19, Sean Leonard <> wrote:
> 24-255 = RFC Required

I like that.
(That includes the independent stream.  But there is a level of quality checking in publishing an RFC, so only high quality specifications will get these.  Of course, the designated expert *could* do the same quality checking, but there may be a slightly higher tendency to just give in among us weaker DEs.)

Grüße, Carsten

CBOR mailing list