[Cbor] draft-ietf-core-sid-05 and draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-07

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 04 March 2019 01:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 30B59130E6F; Sun, 3 Mar 2019 17:16:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 dn8u3q7Yviya; Sun, 3 Mar 2019 17:16:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0DB71271FF; Sun, 3 Mar 2019 17:16:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8758638263; Sun, 3 Mar 2019 20:16:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 01AD0230F; Sun, 3 Mar 2019 20:16:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0047BC09; Sun, 3 Mar 2019 20:16:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: cbor@ietf.org, core@ietf.org
X-Attribution: mcr
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2019 20:16:53 -0500
Message-ID: <21467.1551662213@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/Lbg1FwpB8OmkG8qYc4aS2v5ry00>
Subject: [Cbor] draft-ietf-core-sid-05 and draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-07
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: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 01:16:59 -0000

I wonder if these two drafts wouldn't be better off in CBOR WG?
  draft-ietf-core-sid-05
  YANG Schema Item iDentifier (SID)
  draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-07
  CBOR Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG

Well, anything that would allow the SID to progress enough for the
registries to be created so that they can be used.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-