## Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
The document has received constructive input from several working group
regulars. Thus, the state is probably best described as a practicing consensus,
with few active voices on the list (as is often the case in this WG).
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
There war some disagreement about whether the format should be used as an
interchange format, but that is more a disagreement on the "how it is used"
side and not on the "what we specify" side. (Thread for reference at
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/WvFdMZvkc-hw73TR2mJsBUVvkyA>)
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
There is one widely used implementation maintained by the author at
<https://github.com/cabo/cbor-diag>. Other implementation have not yet taken
this up, but there have been requests to update them. Note that as this is not
an interchange format, there is no immediate need for a large number of
implementations, as the conversion between EDN and CBOR can happen at the end
user's device, whereas most devices only process the transmitted CBOR.
## Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
All interactions are through CBOR, which itself does not change as a result of
this document.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No formal review has been requested.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in [RFC 8342][5]?
There is no YANG module.
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
The ABNF in the appendices has been checked against the tool at
<https://author-tools.ietf.org/abnf>. It warns of the dependency on RFC7405,
which this document duly references.
## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
The document is ready.
(For context, a shepherd review of the first WGLC'd version is documented at
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/w6YT2KehOoMABIOwTnmIti1trdg>;
reading -08 again produced no further comments).
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
This falls into the ART area's expertise.
No review from that team has been requested, given that both the author and
previous reviewers are well familiar with the ART topics.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
[Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
The intended status is Informational, as reflected in the document and the data
tracker. This is suitable because it does not aim for the interoperability
level of a proposed standard (it is not an interchange format).
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
The author has been reminded to file any IPR disclosure; none have been filed
or are expected to be filed.
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes.
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
No I-D nits were found when comparing the document to the guidelines.
The nits reported by the tools are false positives or otherwise not actionable:
* Non-ASCII characters are acceptable nowadays.
* What appears to be code is structured language that has the right metadata.
* I-D.bormann-cbor-draft-numbers is a reference only inside a comment to the
RFC editor. * This document and I-D.ietf-cbor-update-8610-grammar-03 are
expected to be published together.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
The normativity status looks good as a whole.
The normativity of the IEEE754, C an Cplusplus references could be altered if
one of them were deemed *the* normative reference for the `basenumber` format,
but as the explanation treats them as equivalent, they all must be normative.
There are normative references to IANA registries.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
The IEEE754, C and Cplusplus references are not freely available.
For the latter two, pointers to equivalent text are provided.
As these three are part of an equivalent set, this is sufficient.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
list them.
There are no downrefs.
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
There are no unpublished documents in the normative references.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
This document does not change existing RFCs.
20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).
Instructions are clear and consistent.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
The new registries of Expert Review and above have clear guidance.
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/