Re: [Cbor] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-06: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

> On Nov 20, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> On Nov 20, 2018, at 21:18, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-cbor-cddl-06: No Objection
>> 
>> 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:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-cddl/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Most of my comments have already been captured by others, save one:
>> 
>> Is there a specific reason the normative appendices are not part of the main
>> body? I think a lot of RFC readers assume that appendices are optional to read.
>> We should not surprise them without reason.
> 
> The original reason is that none of the authors is part of the tradition that you can ignore appendices.
> (To the contrary, I’m used to documents where *all* the meat is in the appendices; this is almost the normal state in the world of FDT.)
> The reason we didn’t reshuffle things when we heard that this appears to be a widespread concept in the minds of IETFers is that there are so many documents that refer to specific appendices of the draft, so we didn’t want to disturb all those references.
> 
> If you think this is a big enough problem that disturbing all these references is worth fixing it, we can reshuffle.

No, I don’t think it is that big of a problem.

Thanks!

Ben.