%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-24 instead of this revision.
@techreport{ietf-cbor-edn-literals-18,
    number =    {draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-18},
    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/18/},
    author =    {Carsten Bormann},
    title =     {{CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation (EDN)}},
    pagetotal = 55,
    year =      2025,
    month =     jul,
    day =       7,
    abstract =  {This document formalizes and consolidates the definition of the Extended Diagnostic Notation (EDN) of the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR), addressing implementer experience. Replacing EDN's previous informal descriptions, it updates RFC 8949, obsoleting its Section 8, and RFC 8610, obsoleting its Appendix G. It also specifies and uses registry-based extension points, using one to support text representations of epoch-based dates/times and of IP addresses and prefixes. // (This cref will be removed by the RFC editor:) The present -18 // corrects a few omissions from -17; it is not intended to make // technical changes from -17. It is intended for use as an input // document for the CBOR WG meeting at IETF 123.},
}