Re: [Cbor] CBOR tag range IANA allocation policy

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 25 July 2019 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 754A91201F1 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vg4fBqKUdq3U for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99F6A1201D1 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 15:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-80d9.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-80d9.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.128.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45vmxd2bpMz10BM; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 00:25:25 +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 <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <584C141B-9704-4BA2-BD30-21E2FE4D6F90@seantek.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 18:25:23 -0400
Cc: Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@intel.com>, cbor@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 585786321.596122-00360be2b0c4581f61e2cc9816fda0e5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1A8A7E20-A92C-4242-92EB-950CD1F93B27@tzi.org>
References: <07D48905-77B6-447B-8CEB-971CD0568FB9@seantek.com> <10096467.9kdZcmANtY@tjmaciei-mobl1> <CAN40gSt-h+HGLJuTUFMHn3jjOqMJyJjetdSiW1e-o3uZcZ8a3A@mail.gmail.com> <584C141B-9704-4BA2-BD30-21E2FE4D6F90@seantek.com>
To: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/VjRcci7rrx7vEKdmdDD63CCxHe8>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] CBOR tag range IANA allocation policy
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 22:25:30 -0000

On Jul 25, 2019, at 18:19, Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>; wrote:
> 
> 24-255 = RFC Required

I like that.
(That includes the independent stream.  But there is a level of quality checking in publishing an RFC, so only high quality specifications will get these.  Of course, the designated expert *could* do the same quality checking, but there may be a slightly higher tendency to just give in among us weaker DEs.)

Grüße, Carsten