Re: [Cbor] Working group last call on draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag-04

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

As document shepherd, I have one issue that I want to discuss about
this document: its intended RFC status.

It is currently specified as Informational, which is sufficient for
simply making a code-point registration.  But I think the document
goes a bit beyond that, specifying how to use time elements in CBOR,
such that it's likely to be normatively referenced as a standard for
that.  We should consider whether Proposed Standard is more
appropriate at this point.

Comments?

Barry

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 1:16 PM Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Now begins a working group last call on “CBOR Tags for Time, Duration,
> and Period”, to end on Friday, 27 January 2023.  Please give the
> document a good look and post any comments to the CBOR mailing list.
> It would also be helpful to get a few “I reviewed it and it’s ready”
> comments.
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag/
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag-04&url1=draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag-02
>
> --
> Barry