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

Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Tue, 02 July 2019 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 E7F361200E5; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 08:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mJrcdYvcxAoI; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 08:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5A6E1200DF; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 08:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 200116b82c0abb008104c3e4d35e4aa2.dip.versatel-1u1.de ([2001:16b8:2c0a:bb00:8104:c3e4:d35e:4aa2]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de 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 <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <c44bb156-163f-4cb0-b99b-229926bd8055@www.fastmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:52:51 +0200
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, cbor@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, cbor-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2FD505EB-EA0F-4F61-898A-13E0F60DE685@kuehlewind.net>
References: <156156286460.20075.13525430993942460353.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D074E533-6438-476B-86BB-796C2CEB3A41@tzi.org> <c44bb156-163f-4cb0-b99b-229926bd8055@www.fastmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1562082773;2c9c7156;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1hiL5Q-0008Jt-7q
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/LKRDMY_Nqoag3GJb116fW6uwSgQ>
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-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, 02 Jul 2019 15:52:56 -0000

Hi Carsten,

See inline.

> On 2. Jul 2019, at 16:44, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> 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 <noreply@ietf.org> 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.

Mirja



> 
> Best Regards,
> Alexey
> 
>