Re: [Cbor] CBOR tag range IANA allocation policy

Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@intel.com> Thu, 25 July 2019 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <thiago.macieira@intel.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 9110B1201FA for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 WJ-JwAERGSH6 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19CF51201F2 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Jul 2019 14:19:47 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,308,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="369332161"
Received: from orsmsx101.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.225.128]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2019 14:19:47 -0700
Received: from tjmaciei-mobl1.localnet (10.54.75.134) by ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.225.128) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:19:47 -0700
From: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@intel.com>
To: <cbor@ietf.org>
CC: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:19:47 -0700
Message-ID: <10096467.9kdZcmANtY@tjmaciei-mobl1>
Organization: Intel Corporation
In-Reply-To: <07D48905-77B6-447B-8CEB-971CD0568FB9@seantek.com>
References: <07D48905-77B6-447B-8CEB-971CD0568FB9@seantek.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Originating-IP: [10.54.75.134]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/ldRN-98Vz0zZb0xJSLw21Ni3OFc>
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 21:19:50 -0000

On Thursday, 25 July 2019 13:38:41 PDT Sean Leonard wrote:
> 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.

Could we get 32-255 to be slightly stricter but not to the level of standards 
action? I was thinking of publication of a draft to this WG and allow for a 2-
week comment period. This could both spur ideas from other passive watchers 
and ensure high quality of the ones that do get published.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel System Software Products