[Cbor] Re: Criteria for "rough consensus to keep"

[Vadim Goncharov <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, 11 Jul 2026 15:59:20 -0600
Joe Hildebrand <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > On Jul 11, 2026, at 11:32 AM, Vadim Goncharov <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > Is https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/yEkzpxlj-xDGlBVCkibFG6XlOjM/
> > enough umbrella covering point 2b for all such possible features at once?  
> 
> In my opinion, yes.  However, !pragma<<>> is an even easier argument, since
> it wouldn't require as drastic a change to the ABNF or as much look-ahead on
> # comments.

Now it would be bikeshed for character?..

> > 6. No new features from here out, unless there is some technical reason
> > why  
> >> the document won't work without the feature, and there is unanimous
> >> consent on that reason.  (in other words: no new features)  
> > 
> > Do we consider h_2'str'_3 together with arbitrary per-extension encoding
> > indicators (200_ms, float_32le<<>>) a new feature or still part of a bug
> > to be fixed?  
> 
> In my opinion, both are new features that can be added later, but am willing
> to hear why that's wrong.

I have impression that almost everyone (except Rohan & Carsten) agreed for
using unified t<<>> and b<<>> for both concatenation and indefinite-length
strings: the latter would look t_<<>>, and this implies having extname_ei<<>>
form, e.g. t_2'str' or t_2<<'foo', "bar">>. This fixes bug of h'1234'_2
ambiguity. While allowing arbitrary encoding indicators for per-extension
discretion is, strictly speaking, not here - majority if it is already in
this soultion, so there is just a very little step. Especially given that
things like IP_2'1.1.1.1' are meaningless (even if someone insists it is
IP'1.1.1.1'_2 but still belongs to ext, not arg), so per-extension interpeting
of EIs is in fact already here, it is just dark area not covered yet.

-- 
WBR, @nuclight