>>Finally there are people suggesting that CBOR is the IETF version of JSON >>in Binary. It isn't and now it never can be. Not least because it does >>not follow the JSON data model and thus isn't technically >>interchangeable. It is not possible to go back and create consensus after >>people are told 'this is our ball, we choose who we are going to play >>with' as happened in this case. > > Barry, can you add a little more clarity on this point, please? Does your > decision mean that we shall not ever normatively reference CBOR in future > protocols? It does not mean that. CBOR does remain as a Proposed Standard. This is about process, and the key point is here: > we should have had open discussion of > the design criteria before considering a specific proposal for an > encoding. ... > I think it's important for ADs to consider, when deciding to sponsor > non-working-group documents, whether a broader design discussion is > appropriate. I believe that I made a mistake in not considering that > for this case. Barry