[Cbor] Erik Kline's Yes on draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis-14: (with COMMENT)

Erik Kline via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 08 September 2020 23:58 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietf.org
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310EA3A0AE6; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 16:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis@ietf.org, cbor-chairs@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.16.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <159960948017.26685.11511666915285639688@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 16:58:00 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/OE5qRYJqqeE-P2sy-PlNiINlbc8>
Subject: [Cbor] Erik Kline's Yes on draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis-14: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 08 Sep 2020 23:58:00 -0000

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis-14: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


[[ questions ]]

[ section 3.3 ]

* Is it worth comparing and contrasting this encoding format with RFC 4506
  section 4.6?  Are they identical?

[[ comments ]]

[ section 1 ]

* I suppose XDR (4506) isn't well-known anymore.  :-(
  (no edits necessary, just a comment)

[[ nits ]]

[ section 1.2 ]

* "does not include following extraneous data"
  Is "following" important, or is it just "does not include other
  extraneous data"?

[ section 3.4.1 ]

* Perhaps "another type or that" -> "another type or a text string that"

[ section 5.6 ]

* Perhaps "Not accept maps duplicate keys"
  -> "Not accept maps with duplicate keys"?