Re: [Cbor] 🔔 Confirmation call for Working Group Adoption for draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl

The Chicago minutes [1] talk about people using CDDL to write
specifications, but the -11 document is on the informational track
rather than the standards track, meaning, I believe, that it's not
intended to be referenced normatively from specifications. If folks do
want to be able to use CDDL from standards, would the draft need to
change tracks before it becomes a working group item?

If it can change tracks later, then I definitely support adopting it
as a starting point. If adopting it freezes it as informational, then
I'm concerned, however much that counts from a newbie. :)

Thanks,
Jeffrey

[1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/HrfvEralF6mjmO4uK7ZZrz7n7uE/?qid=5a4cfef2594f32f86b5eea519fbbabd0

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 2:48 AM, Francesca Palombini
<francesca.palombini@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> At the IETF98 meeting, we had in-room consensus to adopt
> draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl as a starting point to work on CBOR
> data definition language. The authors have now updated the document and feel
> this is ready to be a wg item.
>
>
>
> This is a confirmation call for adopting this draft as a working group item.
> If you do not agree with the in-room consensus that we had in Chicago to
> adopt this as a WG document, please speak up until 2017-07-19. If you
> weren’t in the room but do agree with adopting this document, you can also
> tell us.
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl-11
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Francesca
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
>