Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard

[Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Aug 9, 2013, at 4:56 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Actually I just want it in writing because my past experience of a similar platform type spec was that it was just another option for developers right up to the point where it was published when I found myself in a BOF where the members were being told that they 'had' to use the IETF platform for their work because that is what had been 'decided'.

People say that a lot.   It's true that code reuse is an argument in favor of doing one thing over another, but there are lots of other relevant arguments, not the least of which is "it doesn't work well."   This second argument carries just as much weight as the first.   The bottom line is that there is nothing the IESG can do to prevent people from making this claim, but working group chairs should understand that it is not binding—it's just one thing to consider among many.

I recommend reading RFC 1958.