Re: [Cbor] Barry Leiba's Yes on charter-ietf-cbor-01-01: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sun, 30 June 2019 21:36 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156136162522.17502.17006799946775417333.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0e9201d52f73$a1f85a50$e5e90ef0$@augustcellars.com>
In-Reply-To: <0e9201d52f73$a1f85a50$e5e90ef0$@augustcellars.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 17:36:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+0Y+5jC19o-5oCtePps5PXgNbgS7iFu+Vs2o4RmqmoMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, cbor-chairs@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/MKIPm9EtnpoEA3PaHctNhzU38VI>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Barry Leiba's Yes on charter-ietf-cbor-01-01: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Hi, Jim,

>> "and add to a second edition of the specification if warranted" ... presumably this is in the
>> re-charter because it *is* warranted.  I suggest removing "if warranted".
>
> [JLS] I would be happy for a re-wording, but the "if warranted" related to individual features
> and not to the entire process of producing a second version.   A better string might be
> "where warranted"

Yeh, that works.

>> "The body of existing specifications that make use of CDDL is considered
>> precious":  Awwwwwwwww...  :-)
>
> [JLS] Not actionable?

And not expected to be; it was a silly.

Barry

[Cbor] Barry Leiba's Yes on charter-ietf-cbor-01-… Barry Leiba via Datatracker
Re: [Cbor] Barry Leiba's Yes on charter-ietf-cbor… Jim Schaad
Re: [Cbor] Barry Leiba's Yes on charter-ietf-cbor… Barry Leiba