Re: WG Review: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (cose)

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

 




On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Not basing further IETF work on CBOR would ensure the IETF loses impact
there, and would accomplish what?


To head off one of those threads where arguments are rehashed repeatedly, I think I'm gonna let the arguments given by Phillip and Sam stand on their own now that I've stated my concern.
 
> 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.

You and I agree here. I favor whatever it takes to make CDDL a viable normative reference, so long as it doesn't preclude other efforts.

-andy

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