[Cbor] Re: I-D Action: draft-mcnally-deterministic-cbor-10.html

[Anders Rundgren <[e-mail]>]

On 2024-07-31 03:46, Wolf McNally wrote:
>> On Jul 30, 2024, at 5:16 PM, lgl island-resort.com <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Coexist!
> 
> I couldn’t have put it any better, and may that be the end of the matter!

Yes, we can put an end here.  For the record only, I find the following rather puzzling:

- No scientific proof of the superiority of numeric reduction from a determinism point of view.

- No down-to-earth example showing how numeric reduction would aid the targeted applications.

Last but not least: with the absence of the things just mentioned, why would anybody promoting a new and potentially important technology, not consider building on the mainstream encoding scheme [*]?


Anyway, a meaningful exchange of ideas and opinions requires that the disagreeing parties carefully distill out each feature, rather than throwing in all what they got.  This never happened and here we are.  I naively thought that this is what chairs are supposed to facilitate, and in an objective manner.


Anders

*] The other part of bCBOR, shaving off a few things that have proved to be less significant, is what just about every CBOR-using application implicitly or explicitly already do, making a specific profile pretty redundant.


> 
> ~ Wolf