Andrew Newton wrote: > Fair enough, however basing further IETF work on it may not be wrong but > does not seem right either. CBOR is getting a lot of traction in the constrained node networking space (the low-resource part of the "Internet of Things"), which is not surprising as it was designed for hat. Not basing further IETF work on CBOR would ensure the IETF loses impact there, and would accomplish what? > I also noticed that the active draft for this effort has a normative > dependency on CDDL. How best to write up the spec is indeed an interesting issue. For now, CDDL is a good way to discuss the draft, much better than lobbing around large quantities of ambiguous English prose. But then, CDDL is still being tweaked, and it is not clear that the IETF wants to give this language a role similar to the one ABNF has for text, or (even if that is at some point accepted as a reasonable thing to do) would want to reach a decision on something like this before COSE is done. So, once the remaining decisions have been taken, the CDDL snippets will probably move to an appendix, and will be replaced in their normative role by gobs of ambiguous English prose. With any luck, we may be able to generate that automatically from the CDDL (just as we are already checking the examples automatically against the CDDL). (Kudos, by the way, for the concepts the CDDL authors could steal from JCR; what a great source of inspiration.) Grüße, Carsten