Re: [media-types] Review requested for draft-bormann-cbor-04

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

At 09:09 15-07-2013, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

* John R Levine wrote:
> draft-bormann-cbor-04 describes a new binary structured data format called 
> Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR), and proposes a media type for 
> it.  The media type info in the draft is:

>>  Encoding considerations:  none; CBOR is a binary format
> 
> Then it's 'binary', not 'none'.

I have seen it done as "none" more often than "binary". Can this group give us a definitive answer for the choice? We're happy to do what the group wants, but right now I can't tell which it should be.

>>  Security considerations:  Same as for the base document
> 
> This could use an additional sentence explaining why there is and what
> is a "base document" in this context, and why the higher-level format
> does not introduce any new security considerations.

This registration is part of an Internet-Draft this is likely to become an RFC; the registration won't live on its own or, if it does, that should say "the registration comes from RFC wxyz". If this group has a preferred way of saying that, we'd be happy to use it.

>>  Applications that use this media type:  None yet, but it is expected
>>     that this format will be deployed in many protocols and
>>     applications.
> 
> This should provide more contextual detail than "many".

Your faith in our predictive abilities is appreciated, but badly misplaced. We will simply remove "many".

> Is there a
> particular kind of application that would use it, like backup and
> archival software or 3d modeling applications or Office programs?

Again, that's defined in the Internet-Draft.

> Making Carsten Bormann the change controller requires some rationale,
> including where RFC 6838 allows that, especially considering that the
> draft-bormann-cbor-04 document appears to be "Standards Track".

I see nothing in RFC 6838 that suggests anything other than what we put in. Having said that, if this group wants standards-track documents to begin having change control be with the IESG, we would certainly make that change *as long as* you say exactly what should be in the field. If that's what y'all want, someone here should write up a short update to 6838 saying so.

Again: we're happy to make changes, but we would want to hear from this group before we go against earlier typical practices.

--Paul Hoffman