Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions
charter-ietf-cbor-03
Yes
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Suresh Krishnan)
- Ready for external review (00-01)
- Approve (00-03)
- Ready for external review (01-01)
- Approve (01-05)
- Ready for external review (02-00)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-03 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-03)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-03)
Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-03)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2016-12-13 for -00-03)
Unknown
I saw the answer to Stephen's "what is GRASP" question in the Internet Review ballot, but I'm still not sure why it's necessary to say "ANIMA GRASP" in this charter. For the parallel case in CORE, the WG name is provided, but no detail beyond that. If I knew what GRASP was without having to look back at Stephen's ballot thread, I wouldn't mention this, of course ... but I wonder how many other readers will have to look it up, too!
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-03)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-03)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-03)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-03)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
(was Block)
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-12-23 for -00-04)
Unknown
Thanks to all who educated me, in the different email threads.
- Moving back to a COMMENT at this point in time.
As Alexey mentioned, some more wording about this in the charter would help (if nobody else, at least me):
I am Ok with having some text in CDDL saying that if you want to do
modeling-driven device management, CDDL is not the right tool. But as I
said above I see other uses for CBOR/CDDL, which should be allowed.
In the end, I missed the key message that CDDL is more helpful for horizontal protocol to support device-to-device communication, as opposed to a management protocol. I've been probably too biased by my OPS background :-)
OLD:
Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) extends the
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON, RFC 7159) data model to include binary data
and an extensibility model
NEW:
Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) extends the
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON, RFC 7159) data interchange format to include binary data
and an extensibility model
Note:
- In OPS, we make a clear distinction between the (YANG) data model, and the encoding (XML, JSON, etc.)
- RFC 7159 mentions "data interchange format" in his abstract
- I see in RFC 7049:
The format defined here follows some specific design goals that are
not well met by current formats. The underlying data model is an
extended version of the JSON data model [RFC4627].
This is a mistake. Great we will have a new charter to accomplish this work
- And don't forget the milestones.
Regards, Benoit
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-03)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-03)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-03)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-03)
Unknown
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-03)
Unknown