Re: [Cbor] Managing CBOR numbers in Internet-Drafts
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 22 February 2023 18:46 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1A82C1526F7 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:46:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vg5wSrdc_7yW for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:46:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0C78C152577 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 10:46:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F40438996; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 14:17:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id sdVm-LQXGKvA; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 14:17:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7752238995; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 14:17:18 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1677093438; bh=kVG634EMvpFiMqcAgYtBBqxcWH+9CRgEVTi5xVC3RBg=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=pIcIitLsy/MiOsfWzSn59LQpbr8JIsFgos1+j7mU1SxKGfARFND8XzeaZeqcMNnNY X4SA+hWGl7mum4N6caW/nG4xSNtzFxd+q25QAi1S2/TdWH1QUizaVwt8/OJRDofraD b4XSFB4x3yHSZMp8HzDZ7KURTbvx1/hJW1abA5G8NwUoVK724EDELybN6yA8upZmFK bDtWXC72JkhXMgG9ASww23akB7nMMxOpK/madq5UDfn3iN6DHU9ci5jFMeZH7zzJ/X nvQVX3/GTBYdSb2dfQR/381xg4OSB042SsfUrIUTfRb3r6amyKZ8N64uRp0G81khGX qYy/Y3ZcyEikw==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BD677F; Wed, 22 Feb 2023 13:45:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, cbor@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <B81A8FEF-C091-47C0-8DB4-3B20F658CBCF@tzi.org>
References: <B81A8FEF-C091-47C0-8DB4-3B20F658CBCF@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 13:45:58 -0500
Message-ID: <26082.1677091558@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/U9a0Ts7MV03MQeFj5kkmnRpKYwI>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Managing CBOR numbers in Internet-Drafts
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
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: Wed, 22 Feb 2023 18:46:05 -0000
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> After running into the problem again while developing another draft, I finally wrote up how I think we should handle the management of CBOR numbers while developing Internet-Drafts.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bormann-cbor-draft-numbers-00
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bormann-cbor-draft-numbers-00.html (readable)
> This submission is probably too late for today’s interim, but feedback is requested!
I read through the document, and it seems like a good convention.
Given that many documents have examples and even signatures over the
contents, and regenerating them is not something that RFC-Editor can do, it
seems that for many documents we need a step involving the authors.
It has to be after IESG approval, after IANA action, but before RFC-Editor
EDIT step. One way to do this with current tooling and process is to invoke
some kind of IANA Early Allocation process, at the end of the IESG review.
(IANA "Late" Early Allocation...)
Or have this document amend BCP 9, perhaps.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
- [Cbor] Managing CBOR numbers in Internet-Drafts Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Cbor] Managing CBOR numbers in Internet-Draf… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Cbor] Managing CBOR numbers in Internet-Draf… Carl Wallace
- Re: [Cbor] Managing CBOR numbers in Internet-Draf… Marco Tiloca