Re: [Cbor] Status of Appendix A in RFC 8949

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 2023-05-05, at 09:27, Anders Rundgren <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> https://cbor.me produces CBOR data items like 0xf9c400 that are rejected by applications building on https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-mcnally-deterministic-cbor-01.html#name-reduction-of-floating-point

I think that for any application, you can find things that you can type into cbor.me that this application will reject.

> Still both solutions claim to be RFC compliant.

The RFC does not cover applications.  Not encoding integral floating point numbers is, from a CBOR point of view, an application rule.

> So the question is simply: is a CBOR interoperability profile a suitable work item for the CBOR WG, or should it preferably be taken to OASIS, ETSI, or the W3C?

Now you are starting to make thinly vailed threats.
I will not respond to those.

I have been quite receptive for picking up the application rules in draft-mcnally-deterministic-cbor as a CBOR work item.  
You just need to stop thinking of them as changing CBOR.

> The target for an interoperability profile are the 80-90% of all developers working with enterprise systems as well as open standards for banking and similar.

The point here is “an interoperability profile”.  
You could define many, and defining one for fintech etc. is fine — it just isn’t a “CBOR interoperability profile”, but a “how is our specific set of applications going to use CBOR” profile.

Grüße, Carsten