[Cbor] CBOR tag range IANA allocation policy
Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com> Thu, 25 July 2019 20:38 UTC
Return-Path: <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
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 B0A3F1201F1 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 gRkC7mZcWCiF for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay1-d.mail.gandi.net (relay1-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12FE9120293 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:38:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: 31.133.157.10
Received: from dhcp-9d0a.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-9d0a.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.157.10]) (Authenticated sender: sean@seantek.org) by relay1-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E988C24000C for <cbor@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 20:38:43 +0000 (UTC)
From: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Message-Id: <07D48905-77B6-447B-8CEB-971CD0568FB9@seantek.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 16:38:41 -0400
To: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/fsz1Z62jDRXPd8YAVg8wcpNx3g4>
Subject: [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 20:38:53 -0000
Hi WG, what is the current stance on changing the IANA Considerations for tag registration? I find the RFC 7049 tag registration scheme (0-31 = standards action, 32-255 = specification required, 256+ = FCFS) to be acceptable. However, I think that maybe we want to encourage more tag registration, while also having a bigger space for more review and publication. I read the minutes and am not sure if there is a current stance or a group sense on the matter, at least within the past 12 months. Thanks, Sean
- [Cbor] CBOR tag range IANA allocation policy Sean Leonard
- Re: [Cbor] CBOR tag range IANA allocation policy Thiago Macieira
- Re: [Cbor] CBOR tag range IANA allocation policy Ira McDonald
- Re: [Cbor] CBOR tag range IANA allocation policy Sean Leonard
- Re: [Cbor] CBOR tag range IANA allocation policy Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Cbor] CBOR tag range IANA allocation policy Thiago Macieira
- Re: [Cbor] CBOR tag range IANA allocation policy Carsten Bormann
- Re: [Cbor] CBOR tag range IANA allocation policy Jim Schaad