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

["Alexey Melnikov" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019, at 5:46 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Hi Mirja,
> 
> good points.  Details below.
> 
> > On Jun 26, 2019, at 17:27, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > BLOCK:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Not sure if my two points justify a block, so I'm happy to change my position
> > if other ADs tell me to, but I'm also not certain if I want to go for "No
> > Objection".
> > 
> > Here are my points:
> > 
> > 1) First on this:
> > "After that, the CBOR working group will monitor issues found with the CBOR
> > specification and, if needed, will produce an updated document." This intention
> > seems to contradict the idea of an Internet Standard in RFC2026 a bit:
> >   "A specification for which significant implementation and successful
> >   operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
> >   Internet Standard level.  An Internet Standard (which may simply be
> >   referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
> >   technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
> >   protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
> >   community."
> > Maybe this is nit-picking but if the group is not sure if there are further
> > issue, one should probably simply not push for Internet Standard…
> 
> Of course the group is sure about that!!!1one
> 
> Some STD documents do have updates (say, RFC 791 is updated by RFC1349, 
> RFC2474,     RFC6864), but I would actually also feel better without 
> this apparent escape hatch.  We do want to get this right!

Ok, I suggest we remove "After that, the CBOR working group will monitor issues found with the CBOR specification
and, if needed, will produce an updated document." This would always remain a future possibility, even if the document is an Internet Standard.

> > 2) I find the later part of the charter rather generic (starting which "There
> > are a number of additional CBOR tagged types..."). I also don't really
> > understand the difference of "General purpose" and "Internet-wide". These are
> > two different aspects for me that don't exclude each other. I would rather like
> > to see a charter that actually limits the technical scope rather than talking
> > about a generic process (that may or could be or is applied in other groups as
> > well).

Are you suggesting that the Charter should just list specific documents and require rechartering once the work is done?

> My fault.  This was specifically about CBOR Tag definitions, until we 
> noticed that we might be having some glue/housekeeping like the CBOR 
> sequence document.  But really, this is almost all about CBOR Tag 
> definitions.
> 
> General purpose vs. Internet-wide: Not all usage of CBOR occurs on the 
> Internet, so there is a difference, but yes, these generally will 
> overlap.  (Example for non-Internet usage: CBOR can be a great log file 
> format.)
> 
> So when is a Tag spec in scope:  When we expect a general purpose 
> and/or Internet-wide usage of the Tag (or other CBOR specific 
> housekeeping document like a media type definition).

Is any clarification needed on this point?

Best Regards,
Alexey