Subject: [Cbor] Mirja Kühlewind's Block on charter-ietf-cbor-01-01: (with BLOCK)

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 08:27:44 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-cbor-01-01: Block

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure if my two points justify a block, so I'm happy to change my position
if other ADs tell me to, but I'm also not certain if I want to go for "No
Objection".

Here are my points:

1) First on this:
"After that, the CBOR working group will monitor issues found with the CBOR
specification and, if needed, will produce an updated document." This intention
seems to contradict the idea of an Internet Standard in RFC2026 a bit:
   "A specification for which significant implementation and successful
   operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
   Internet Standard level.  An Internet Standard (which may simply be
   referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
   technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
   protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
   community."
Maybe this is nit-picking but if the group is not sure if there are further
issue, one should probably simply not push for Internet Standard...

2) I find the later part of the charter rather generic (starting which "There
are a number of additional CBOR tagged types..."). I also don't really
understand the difference of "General purpose" and "Internet-wide". These are
two different aspects for me that don't exclude each other. I would rather like
to see a charter that actually limits the technical scope rather than talking
about a generic process (that may or could be or is applied in other groups as
well).

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:46:14 +0200

Hi Mirja,

good points.  Details below.

> On Jun 26, 2019, at 17:27, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> issue, one should probably simply not push for Internet Standard…

Of course the group is sure about that!!!1one

Some STD documents do have updates (say, RFC 791 is updated by RFC1349, RFC2474,     RFC6864), but I would actually also feel better without this apparent escape hatch.  We do want to get this right!

> about a generic process (that may or could be or is applied in other groups as

My fault.  This was specifically about CBOR Tag definitions, until we noticed that we might be having some glue/housekeeping like the CBOR sequence document.  But really, this is almost all about CBOR Tag definitions.

General purpose vs. Internet-wide: Not all usage of CBOR occurs on the Internet, so there is a difference, but yes, these generally will overlap.  (Example for non-Internet usage: CBOR can be a great log file format.)

So when is a Tag spec in scope:  When we expect a general purpose and/or Internet-wide usage of the Tag (or other CBOR specific housekeeping document like a media type definition).

Grüße, Carsten