Re: [Rats] Where does a EAT end? - consensus?

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

> Carl Wallace <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > The CDDL that plugs into the socket requires no codepoint
> > allocation, only a document that contains and describes it.  There
> > are likely other registries impacted (e.g., CBOR tags, Media Types,
> > CoAP Content Formats, etc.) but they are modified by IANA actions
> > defined in the RFC that also provide the extension CDDL.  There is
> > no need for a "synoptical" registry I think.
>
> [CW] OK, it may be that what I was thinking needed a registry (i.e.,
> tagged structures) is already covered elsewhere.

Yes, I think so.  Except it's not just one registry, it could be that
multiple already existing registries are impacted at the same time.

> > Given that the goal is to maximise the chance of successful interop,
> > what is the impact of also allowing experimental (alongside
> > standards track) in terms of implementation support?
> >
> > For full disclosure and with my Arm hat on: it'd be bad if a
> > collection-based EAT wasn't supported by most of the ecosystem only
> > because it ends up being defined in an RFC tagged "experimental."
>
> [CW] I wasn’t suggesting we’d want “experimental” RFCs in the long
> run, but was only observing the pace of change in this area didn’t
> seem to fit with proclaiming it “finished”. Use of extensibility
> mechanisms has not tended to update core specs like this for the specs
> I’ve generally deal with (things like CMS). We don’t need to belabor
> this though, if a registry is something the seems useful later, it
> could be added later.

Fully agree.



IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.