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

"Alexey Melnikov" <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Tue, 02 July 2019 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
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 997F112009E; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 07:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmail.fm header.b=MeXuGd8g; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=LBhBzmXx
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 IECpmswGKZL1; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 07:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6F5312007A; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 07:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E265B22265; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 10:45:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap1 ([10.202.2.51]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 02 Jul 2019 10:45:03 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to:cc :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm3; bh=e0R4U qzhEd477UvHtOTR/J423iH3oLy5AHETnaBk2iE=; b=MeXuGd8gvgEkmtMGF4IB/ IeyBFyc1jVoAzIdzO7gJzma5WKHsVztREqnHP/zScQheT+Bw6R1m/gLbNiZNFPSi Tf9tbSUNA2qMj1hTAIMg9os0GkTm9creR6zOy3G+YtZzZstiJjqb05WclYnZWkd8 5n7pRRN5mf2LCA9b43IaUlYcAVk9fYfzLDBOPsmXnpqqGfrJ8rwKEaKKSyPZSKhf wCXdQk2z5smSmAxdSrM0rybJ7LFiLwqqaEk05KPjc9WKXQ93QzfoSfpwGDKCuYbq rgmPvixgCJrNTR7WXjXF195A6dlo4JqtDDiK/+upzRtSXby8mnIxf0Bi/kUv+alg g==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; 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=e0R4UqzhEd477UvHtOTR/J423iH3oLy5AHETnaBk2 iE=; b=LBhBzmXxqlyW9lSscf8cV4t7GF7HpjaFOx7bkFcMP2HFWrbS3GQ42gBLa cPhe9lTRNXKBFkdvJxnUhsskvUiLiyb+zcYCsEmrnDIJ4I+3vn0+atj++PoMaxIV qtzye7KDntJpIxbU67oWWX10nbNCnpWN81aKhLmThmvN79bW6eTiavH/n32O0bqj egS1/WOmcCgjTzK6AHWMLbu4SZFVfJstafkh425MVQfYj/2z8eJFtQpHYT3up9n8 GL9A4NKjmeSEPughyBZV9YqVlnENdZ58MStAVM0b2LnG7hL1b2sTA3/GLOClqr0i 1f+G8jqpNsxwC6nW33+xdNA3pUeag==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:7m0bXSaRVC_rvfze7FcVkSGWCSMB8BLH4yXx7JORsCPI6G14nzSnNw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrvdekgdekvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtgfesthhqredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdetlhgv gigvhicuofgvlhhnihhkohhvfdcuoegrrghmvghlnhhikhhovhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrd hfmheqnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrrghmvghlnhhikhhovhesfhgrshht mhgrihhlrdhfmhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:720bXROROJFDkpIwgENP8vZymaGide9tJy14utH4sD51n-BrRh1F1w> <xmx:720bXTb7V_racVncD2ZFwh5xjgwfqHsBO_HPIBIX2OGbHGe8DS1S3A> <xmx:720bXRV_G6GqhPwKRmtVf0tsQF0i1EspbhjNiFomQPwYmdOtqz5wpg> <xmx:720bXW2qxFmJyqbN_GH5QaRw687iSnXNwwG9YYXsF3y9H2zceUuYKA>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id E61F3C200A4; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 10:45:02 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.6-731-g19d3b16-fmstable-20190627v1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <c44bb156-163f-4cb0-b99b-229926bd8055@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <D074E533-6438-476B-86BB-796C2CEB3A41@tzi.org>
References: <156156286460.20075.13525430993942460353.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D074E533-6438-476B-86BB-796C2CEB3A41@tzi.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 15:44:45 +0100
From: "Alexey Melnikov" <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org>, "Mirja Kuehlewind" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: cbor@ietf.org, "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, cbor-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/vFRFGf_KY66KAZhgR09wNnAJHLU>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Block_on_charter-ietf-?= =?utf-8?q?cbor-01-01=3A_=28with_BLOCK=29?=
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: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 14:45:07 -0000

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 <noreply@ietf.org> 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