CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation (EDN)
draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-19

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, cbor-chairs@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org, christian@amsuess.com, draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals@ietf.org, orie@transmute.industries, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Document Action: 'CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation (EDN): Application-Oriented Literals, ABNF, and Media Type' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-09.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'CBOR Extended Diagnostic Notation (EDN): Application-Oriented
   Literals, ABNF, and Media Type'
  (draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals-09.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Concise Binary Object Representation
Maintenance and Extensions Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Murray Kucherawy and Orie Steele.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   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.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Christian Amsüss. The
   Responsible Area Director is Orie Steele.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note