> Purely as a process clarification (I don't care enough one way > or the other, but I haven't been involved in JSON work), is it > correct that, if someone wanted the state that Joe asked about > (i.e., no normative references to CBOR), they would need to take > one of the following three steps: > > (1) Appeal your just-announced decision, asking that the > document be reclassified to Experimental, Informational, or, I > suppose, Historic? If someone really thought it was in the best interest of the IETF to reclassify the document, yes, they could appeal my decision; talking to the IETF Chair would be the proper path. > (2) Generate an I-D specifying one of the above four results and > the reasons for it and try to get that I-D approved. That would be an alternative path to getting the document reclassified. Reclassifying the document would not stop anyone from using it as a normative reference, now that we permit downrefs. > (3) Generate an I-D for an Applicability Statement that would > identify CBOR as "not recommended" and try to get it approved. > While that would not prevent a normative reference requiring > CBOR use, it would certainly touch off an interesting discussion > should anyone try to do it. A "CBOR Considered Harmful" document would be a more extreme case of (2), yes. > Does that correctly summarize the process alternatives? It seems like it. I imagine that, creative sorts that we are, we could manage to come up with other wrinkles. As I've said, I think none of them are in our best interest at this point. Barry