Re: [Cbor] Status of CBOR CRS Specification

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

> On 2023-03-03, at 13:53, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> 
> Chris Lemmons <[e-mail]> 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