Re: [Cbor] Adam Roach's Block on charter-ietf-cbor-01-01: (with BLOCK)

"Alexey Melnikov" <> Tue, 02 July 2019 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E0F212008C; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 07:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=ah9fxpqj; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=00GFsGvf
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f9f3YCvvVMqN; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 07:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2405512000E; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 07:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C46220BA; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 10:38:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap1 ([]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:38:00 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to:cc :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm3; bh=hV9hh LZnlazrHH9Mf2H64sHs+d4rqzwvQcAU/VvTrM4=; b=ah9fxpqjLMMcAoBKKaj7C PnSYLbwesuX55b4wkBik4DPC/x4mxA/sqLXBvhdIp36YMqBxz3fkskJXo0fEcCDb OPoFzDcAuoVpxQZfAjUBWzNIGSNgG7rmtB+lxJMhDFzfZXmV+/Fwh61HD9sEupLV 118Mww0DVuT8GyvIxtN8yDD6Ix00S3PII2QtVTeMho8Sdw2+bqo1IVhcbP8U6SpJ jjQp/uzPwFk4SuBioHAcv0Wcw/qU+TP+B5l79WYRfEp08F6NQ3vZUkABnM4pYMo0 h4NotzJfZsQ19S7vl6XX5UIifvzs+y/fjGkE4y/uU3y/TjO3qPU6cIJe1OCM22eA g==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=hV9hhLZnlazrHH9Mf2H64sHs+d4rqzwvQcAU/VvTr M4=; b=00GFsGvfFGfjcq/c0C1reJfLr56mC9PXedfsBHS6vCA7lqauhHHpDBZYQ Olbcg3qtRWLbxMCydzmKSdG3ss/eYKfTb8PwImfSiP35JzKGYT7tZ2Mrb+FxD5kT fdkxsbtXXMzsER0uro1kcjzFvvwx+q5SwJmOkil0mFscfOnF7U3hWgQOKVK+Cg1f 4lioeDqVBB5hyDkzdO3yfaaqpTvr/GMOJJXqK2zPcwnip2h0nYPxJKWmBAzb/uRV PhERhmAmwf4DgagBLczQb+m9mc1Huj8cujChQW0xImzFSo+L7vxTSX9WBefct4f1 MqIzgSdgOwsvSc2/VDzc8KNJ5Ud+w==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:R2wbXSNDo-RDr7XyxmvYIjDtJbHLEHP9MGcRyqNz6UhpQ0Sb0uWHxw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrvdekgdekudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtgfesthhqredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdetlhgv gigvhicuofgvlhhnihhkohhvfdcuoegrrghmvghlnhhikhhovhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrd hfmheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhho mheprggrmhgvlhhnihhkohhvsehfrghsthhmrghilhdrfhhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuih iivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:SGwbXQrKk882zYYmOL-rdk1EfPnoISfJnQmURfRP3bJ0_MaOOgnW6A> <xmx:SGwbXU6IInmTtrqTsqqHE_VxWO809OlyyeLUg8MkQG3oOo8GTcs-1w> <xmx:SGwbXehgYN0GGQWFiDQ3pdwB6H68C9rrfhLyTGZr_GgWPYbfbs8ZNw> <xmx:SGwbXS5op4Xhb-AN7GBw4EeDL6k55Vw2gcyXTNIC_6PNjn67UPUwsQ>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id DFC69C200A6; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 10:37:59 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.6-731-g19d3b16-fmstable-20190627v1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 15:37:45 +0100
From: "Alexey Melnikov" <>
To: "Carsten Bormann" <>, "Adam Roach" <>
Cc:, "The IESG" <>,
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] =?utf-8?q?Adam_Roach=27s_Block_on_charter-ietf-cbor-01-01?= =?utf-8?q?=3A_=28with_BLOCK=29?=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 14:38:05 -0000

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, at 6:53 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Hi Adam,
> these are very good questions indeed.
> As you may have noticed, the rescoping beyond IoT is not just happening 
> to CDDL.
> CBOR is now being used in a wide variety of specifications that have 
> varying aspects of IoTness to them, e.g., consider WebAuthn and CTAP2.  
> This is also visible in the set of people who are contributing.
> So I don’t think the rechartered CBOR WG as proposed will be an obscure 
> IoT only working group.

I agree that use of CBOR is not limited to IoT space. I struggle to make this any clearer in the charter text. Adam, do you think anything needs to change/ can be improved here?

> Of the three jobs of the rechartered WG, the CBORbis part has the 
> shortest timeline.
> Once that is finished, we are left with CDDL and the Tags documents 
> (and occasional media type documents).  While Tags are specific to 
> CBOR, they also could be viewed as a component model that will 
> increasingly be used in CDDL as well.  The more general purpose (or 
> internet-wide) Tags documents that would be worked on by the WG would 
> flow together with the desire to componentize CDDL.
> With respect to the broader field of “schema languages”, the extreme 
> version of your proposal would be to merge into one WG the existing 
> netmod WG (the work on YANG), the CDDL work of the CBOR WG, and the 
> various approaches to data modeling being discussed on the JSON WG 
> mailing list right now.  Clearly, data modeling has become an important 
> aspect of the field of protocol development.  But that does not mean 
> all that work needs to be in one WG.  The constituents are overlapping, 
> but mostly distinct: operations and management, application layer and 
> security protocol design, application API development.
> Creating a new “data modeling for JSON and friends” WG would send a 
> signal that we take the data modeling area more seriously.  But it 
> would also defocus from the evolution of CDDL as one description 
> technique in this space; it seems to me that the current approach of 
> evolving a number of coherent designs in a competitive manner is 
> ultimately more productive.
> A pure CDDL working group would certainly work, but would leave the 
> work on Tags on the sidelines — keeping a CBOR working group just for 
> the Tags work (once CBORbis is completed) doesn’t seem to make a lot of 
> sense, and we want to achieve a higher degree of integration between 
> components work and language work anyway.

Considering size of the WG, people involved and the fact that CBOR model is more complex than JSON, so it is more likely to affect CDDL, I think it makes sense to keep both CBOR and any possible CDDL extensions in one place.

> So I think the charter proposal has it about right, with the possible 
> exception of the need for a signal that this WG is not just about IoT 
> any more.  But that signal can be outside the charter.


Best Regards,

> Grüße, Carsten
> > On Jun 26, 2019, at 05:59, Adam Roach via Datatracker <>; wrote:
> > 
> > Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> > charter-ietf-cbor-01-01: Block
> > 
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > BLOCK:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > This is a "DISCUSS-discuss" style block, in the spirit of backing up and making
> > sure we're making the right overall decision here.
> > 
> > I'd like us to have a short conversation about whether it makes sense for the
> > CDDL work to continue in the CBOR working group. Given that it has been
> > rescoped and renamed to be a more general-purpose schema language covering not
> > just CBOR, but the much broader JSON universe, it seems that this work is
> > extremely likely to have a broad constituency outside of those people who
> > typically participate in working groups that focus on IoT use-cases. Keeping it
> > part of CBOR does not seem to serve that community well.
> > 
> > Should we consider splitting the CDDL update and maintenance work off into a
> > separate working group, rather than rechartering CBOR with the rather
> > significant expansion considered in this charter proposal?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > CBOR mailing list
> >
> >
> >