Re: [Cbor] 🔔 Confirmation call for Working Group Adoption for draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 9, 2017, at 16:36, Jeffrey Yasskin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> If folks do
> want to be able to use CDDL from standards, would the draft need to
> change tracks before it becomes a working group item?

Yes.  That is not unusual; documents often change the track even when they already are in IESG processing.

> If it can change tracks later, then I definitely support adopting it
> as a starting point. If adopting it freezes it as informational, then
> I'm concerned, however much that counts from a newbie. :)

I don’t think the WG has to make the choice (that I talked about the in the previous message) now with adoption.  On the other hand, the purpose of this work is to make the CDDL document a referenceable specification language specification.  For ABNF, this was solved by making the spec language spec itself standards track (starting with RFC 2234 in November 1997, after ABNF had been in use for two decades (*)).  Putting out an informational document on the downref list (**) is more circuitous, but would have the same effect.  

(I would prefer to use RFC 2234/4234/5234 as a model here as much as possible, maybe with the exception of waiting 20 years before standardizing :-).)

Grüße, Carsten

(*) Starting with RFC 733 in November 1977, I think; although older BNF variants had been in use since 1968 (RFC 31). 
(**) https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/DownrefRegistry