%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-19 instead of this revision.
@techreport{ietf-cbor-edn-literals-08,
    number =    {draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-08},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals/08/},
    author =    {Carsten Bormann},
    title =     {{CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation (EDN): Application-Oriented Literals, ABNF, and Media Type}},
    pagetotal = 28,
    year =      2024,
    month =     feb,
    day =       1,
    abstract =  {The Concise Binary Object Representation, CBOR (STD 94, RFC 8949), defines a "diagnostic notation" in order to be able to converse about CBOR data items without having to resort to binary data. This document specifies how to add application-oriented extensions to the diagnostic notation. It then defines two such extensions for text representations of epoch-based date/times and of IP addresses and prefixes (RFC 9164). A few further additions close some gaps in usability. To facilitate tool interoperation, this document specifies a formal ABNF definition for extended diagnostic notation (EDN) that accommodates application- oriented literals.},
}