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

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carl,

> Carl Wallace <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Laurence's one-line PR is roughly equivalent to RFC8126 "standards
> action" policy, but without a registry - which I am quite convinced is
> superfluous in this case.
>
> [CW] Why would a registry be superfluous? All four of the options in
> RFC8126 section 4.9 have registries.

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.

> PS: we could add a postil "[...] MUST be defined in a IETF standards
> track document _that updates this document_" to make an explicit
> back-pointer in the RFC series.
>
> [CW] The changes in the current section 1.2 over the past year and the
> recent addition of the collections spec suggests things may still be
> moving. Even if no registry, it seems premature to preclude use of the
> experimental track.

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."

Cheers, thanks,




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.