Subject: [Cbor] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-cbor-00-01: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 19:48:26 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-cbor-00-01: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cbor/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that 

"Where these proposals are
deemed useful and do not require significant new development, the CBOR WG
will
complete these specifications as well."

is describing a limited license for the working group for two proposals,
I found myself wondering if there might be other proposals that are
deemed useful and don't require significant new development, that the
charter might allow without requiring rechartering. Maybe something like

"Where these CBOR extensions, or other CBOR extension proposals are
deemed useful and do not require significant new development, the CBOR WG
will
complete these specifications as well."

? But if you want the charter to be tight in this respect, the current
text is fine.

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 05:54:01 +0100

Hi Spencer,

On 1 Dec 2016, at 04:48, Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> or other CBOR extension proposals

So far, the text has been careful to limit the scope to work that uses existing extension points defined by RFC 7049 (for the two documents cited. specifically, by defining CBOR tags).  "or other CBOR extension proposals” might be taken to completely open Pandora’s box here.

But I agree that if something comes up that is of the same quality as the two documents, the WG should be allowed to look into it.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 00:13:27 -0600

Hi, Carsten,

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]> wrote:

> So far, the text has been careful to limit the scope to work that uses
> existing extension points defined by RFC 7049 (for the two documents cited.
> specifically, by defining CBOR tags).  "or other CBOR extension proposals”
> might be taken to completely open Pandora’s box here.
>
> But I agree that if something comes up that is of the same quality as the
> two documents, the WG should be allowed to look into it.
>

Thanks for the quick response.

So, would something like

"Where these CBOR extensions, or other CBOR extension proposals of similar
quality,
are deemed useful and do not require significant new development, the CBOR
WG
will complete these specifications as well."

be worth saying?

And either answer is OK, I'm just trying to think ahead :-)

Spencer

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 08:36:51 +0100

On 1 Dec 2016, at 07:13, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> "Where these CBOR extensions, or other CBOR extension proposals of similar quality, 
> are deemed useful and do not require significant new development, the CBOR WG
> will complete these specifications as well.” 

Works for me, but I’m sure there will be people who want to wordsmith further on the somewhat fuzzy “of similar quality”.  (It works for me because I trust the chairs and ADs to interpret this in a useful way.)

Grüße, Carsten