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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 08/10/2013 03:33 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 8/9/2013 6:09 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> So some kind of statement that CBOR is one point in a design
>> space (as opposed to an optimal solution for some set of
>> design objectives) would be worthwhile.
> 
> 
> huh?  

That's fair. My suggestion above wasn't a model of clarity;-)

> a statement beyond the opening sentence of the introduction and
> its third paragraph?

And now that I read that again, yes, it does what I was
trying try to ask for well enough.

S.

> 
> worthwhile to whom and for what?  it's a spec (or perhaps a meta-spec.)
>  it provides a capability.  it needs to specify the what and how well
> enough to be usable.
> 
> while ietf culture permits specifications to have quite a variety of
> commentary, historical or contextual discussion is not an essential part
> of the document, and certainly not discussion cast in a manner to
> denigrate the current spec.
> 
> Counter-marketing that has the current spec self-deprecatingly casting
> itself as  only one of many seems mostly worthwhile to get people to
> avoid using it.
> 
> exp makes sense if there is doubt that it is technically workable, not
> because its success in the market is questionable.  we give ps all the
> time to specs that have little clear market and go on gain small market
> use.
> 
> from what i've seen, this is a carefully researched and crafted
> mechanism and i haven't noted anyone challenging it on basic technical
> grounds.
> 
> d/
> 




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]