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

Carsten Bormann <> Wed, 03 July 2019 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1FE3120230; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 07:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 AAQ9hBsyGgnp; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 07:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2814012008F; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 07:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45f3PP0LCFz14Vx; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 16:28:25 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 16:28:37 +0200
Cc:,, The IESG <>, Alexey Melnikov <>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 583856916.1106811-6f1f25bff06aa5ad9dc04b50431dd237
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
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: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 14:28:29 -0000

Hi Mirja,

these are good points.

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 15:23, Mirja Kuehlewind <> wrote:
> Hi Carsten,
> Having a more open charter is fine as well, if you see this as going into maintenance mode. However, I don’t really see the value in defining this additional process with these three categories (which are also not completely clear to everybody and therefore probably not always straight forward to map). I would recommend to discuss every proposed tag separately and have a wg call to add a milestone for a tag if accepted in the group. I’d otherwise even be afraid that having these categories might focus any adoption discussion too much on the scope only and may end up not being very unconstructive.

I can imagine that, too (even if I think that the composition of the WG so far wouldn’t fall for that, the composition can of course change).

> Therefore I still recommend to remove that part from the charter. Maybe say something other like:
> "The working group will evaluate such proposal individually and decide about addition of a respective milestone. Proposals that are deemed to be out of scope for the working group, e.g. because they are too narrow purpose specifications, may still be published as individual submission or in another groups if there is a specific need. The cbor group will review these proposals on request.”

Works for me.

I could imagine that the WG will get used over time to an evaluation process that does make use of the two dimensions, broad vs. narrow, and application development vs. Internet usage.  But we can let the WG evolve that process (e.g., in an informal way) on its own, without having to touch the charter again on every step of that evolution.

> Or something similar…

I think we can discuss the details further in 35 minutes in our virtual WG interim…

Thank you!

Grüße, Carsten