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

Mirja Kuehlewind <> Tue, 02 July 2019 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7F361200E5; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 08:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mJrcdYvcxAoI; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 08:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5A6E1200DF; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 08:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([2001:16b8:2c0a:bb00:8104:c3e4:d35e:4aa2]); authenticated by running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1hiL5Q-0008Jt-7q; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 17:52:52 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:52:51 +0200
Cc: Carsten Bormann <>,, The IESG <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Alexey Melnikov <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-HE-SMSGID: 1hiL5Q-0008Jt-7q
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Block_on_charter-ietf-?= =?utf-8?q?cbor-01-01=3A_=28with_BLOCK=29?=
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 15:52:56 -0000

Hi Carsten,

See inline.

> On 2. Jul 2019, at 16:44, Alexey Melnikov <> wrote:
> Hi Mirja,
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, at 5:46 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> Hi Mirja,
>> good points.  Details below.
>>> On Jun 26, 2019, at 17:27, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <> wrote:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> BLOCK:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Not sure if my two points justify a block, so I'm happy to change my position
>>> if other ADs tell me to, but I'm also not certain if I want to go for "No
>>> Objection".
>>> Here are my points:
>>> 1) First on this:
>>> "After that, the CBOR working group will monitor issues found with the CBOR
>>> specification and, if needed, will produce an updated document." This intention
>>> seems to contradict the idea of an Internet Standard in RFC2026 a bit:
>>>  "A specification for which significant implementation and successful
>>>  operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
>>>  Internet Standard level.  An Internet Standard (which may simply be
>>>  referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
>>>  technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
>>>  protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
>>>  community."
>>> Maybe this is nit-picking but if the group is not sure if there are further
>>> issue, one should probably simply not push for Internet Standard…
>> Of course the group is sure about that!!!1one
>> Some STD documents do have updates (say, RFC 791 is updated by RFC1349, 
>> RFC2474,     RFC6864), but I would actually also feel better without 
>> this apparent escape hatch.  We do want to get this right!
> Ok, I suggest we remove "After that, the CBOR working group will monitor issues found with the CBOR specification
> and, if needed, will produce an updated document." This would always remain a future possibility, even if the document is an Internet Standard.

I think that makes sense. Thanks!

>>> 2) I find the later part of the charter rather generic (starting which "There
>>> are a number of additional CBOR tagged types..."). I also don't really
>>> understand the difference of "General purpose" and "Internet-wide". These are
>>> two different aspects for me that don't exclude each other. I would rather like
>>> to see a charter that actually limits the technical scope rather than talking
>>> about a generic process (that may or could be or is applied in other groups as
>>> well).
> Are you suggesting that the Charter should just list specific documents and require rechartering once the work is done?

Yes, I think that would actually be the better approach, where document should not be specific drafts but specific work items.
>> My fault.  This was specifically about CBOR Tag definitions, until we 
>> noticed that we might be having some glue/housekeeping like the CBOR 
>> sequence document.  But really, this is almost all about CBOR Tag 
>> definitions.
>> General purpose vs. Internet-wide: Not all usage of CBOR occurs on the 
>> Internet, so there is a difference, but yes, these generally will 
>> overlap.  (Example for non-Internet usage: CBOR can be a great log file 
>> format.)
>> So when is a Tag spec in scope:  When we expect a general purpose 
>> and/or Internet-wide usage of the Tag (or other CBOR specific 
>> housekeeping document like a media type definition).
> Is any clarification needed on this point?

I think my confusion is about listing hem as separate items on the implication on the decision. However, if the group decided to rather list specific items instead, I guess this part is not needed anymore.


> Best Regards,
> Alexey