Re: [Cbor] Status of CBOR CRS Specification

On 3. Mar 2023, at 19:39, Chris Lemmons <alficles@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I emailed the author directly about it a month ago, but didn't get a
> response. It's quite possible that they've got more pressing things to
> attend to or just missed my message.

Right.  Let’s spend a little more effort in trying to find Trevor — mail is so unreliable these days.

> As for whether it's useful to have an RFC, that's an interesting
> question. I'd probably have done a mere registration for this one, but
> it's already three-quarters done as a draft. It's not a ton of work to
> just get it over the finish line.

Can you give us a hint how you would evolve this specification?

I think anything that would just extend what you can do with 104 (without changing the meaning of what you already can do) should be fine.
Or we could go ahead and do a new tag as well that does have changes in meaning.

Grüße, Carsten

> 
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 6:09 AM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 2023-03-03, at 13:53, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Signed PGP part
>>> 
>>> Chris Lemmons <alficles@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> This leaves me with two options: define a new tag fit for precisely the
>>>> purpose I need, or see if there's interest in finishing the work that
>>>> was started with Tag 104. It does seem like having two tags, especially
>>>> with one in the low-numbered space, is not ideal.
>>> 
>>>> The draft is here:
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-clarke-cbor-crs/
>>> 
>>>> For context, I need a CRS tag that can "wrap" other content to describe
>>>> the CRS for that which it encloses. I can define it as necessary, but
>>>> reuse is usually better. Is there any interest in picking up the work
>>>> of Tag 104? Is this even an appropriate venue for that?
>>> 
>>> I think that CBOR is the right place for this.
>>> Try reaching out to the author, T.Clarke @ Ball.  If he doesn't have time to
>>> pursue this document and make you a co-author, then we have the XML for it,
>>> and could just take it over.  Once adopted, document authors serve at the
>>> pleasure of the wg chairs, so changing authors isn't a problem.
>>> (just have to give credit where it is due)
>>> 
>>> It's possible to do new tags in ~1 year as evidenced by RFC9164 and 9277.
>>> (Actually, I think they could have happened even faster)
>> 
>> If it is useful to have an RFC, this is correct; a mere registration can be done much more quickly.
>> 
>> Grüße, Carsten
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> CBOR mailing list
>> CBOR@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor