Skip to main content

Packed CBOR
draft-ietf-cbor-packed-08

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2023-01-23
08 Carsten Bormann New version available: draft-ietf-cbor-packed-08.txt
2023-01-23
08 Carsten Bormann New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Carsten Bormann)
2023-01-23
08 Carsten Bormann Uploaded new revision
2022-07-27
07 Christian Amsüss Added to session: IETF-114: cbor  Thu-1730
2022-07-24
07 Carsten Bormann New version available: draft-ietf-cbor-packed-07.txt
2022-07-24
07 Carsten Bormann New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Carsten Bormann)
2022-07-24
07 Carsten Bormann Uploaded new revision
2022-07-22
06 Christian Amsüss Added to session: interim-2022-cbor-12
2022-07-11
06 Carsten Bormann New version available: draft-ietf-cbor-packed-06.txt
2022-07-11
06 Carsten Bormann New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Carsten Bormann)
2022-07-11
06 Carsten Bormann Uploaded new revision
2022-05-25
05 Barry Leiba Waiting for a revision after WGLC.
2022-05-25
05 Barry Leiba Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2022-05-25
05 Barry Leiba IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2022-05-19
05 Barry Leiba
# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2023.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering …
# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2023.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858][2], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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 CBOR working group is relatively small in terms of active participants, but among those it represents strong concurrence.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
  No.  There was a proposal in mid-2021 to add tags for records, and that proposal had a reasonable amount of discussion, starting here:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/IEfXAOBMYPfA8s5UACxCUNk0ddU/
  The result of that discussion was to make no changes in this document, but instead to
  handle it through the IANA registration mechanism.

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)?
 
  Yes.  Yes.  Not that I’m aware of.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
 
  No.

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.
 
  N/A.

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]?
 
  N/A.

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.
 
  N/A.

### 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?
 
  Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?
   
    No.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
   
    The document is Proposed Standard.  It describes a mechanism for compressing a CBOR stream that requires interoperabilty among implementations.  Yes.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.
   
    Yes.  There was no discussion, because there are no disclosures.

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.
   
    Yes.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.
   
    The obsolete reference to 7049 is in the Acknowledgments and is intentional.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

    No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
   
    N/A.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.
   
    No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?
   
    No.

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.
   
    No.

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][12]).
   
    Describe?  How?  I reviewed it.  It’s clear and complete.

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.
   
    N/A.

[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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
2022-05-18
05 Christian Amsüss Added to session: interim-2022-cbor-08
2022-05-06
05 Barry Leiba
# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2023.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering …
# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2023.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858][2], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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 CBOR working group is relatively small in terms of active participants, but among those it represents strong concurrence.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
  No.  There was a proposal in mid-2021 to add tags for records, and that proposal had a reasonable amount of discussion, starting here:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/IEfXAOBMYPfA8s5UACxCUNk0ddU/

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)?
 
  Yes.  Yes.  Not that I’m aware of.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
 
  No.

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.
 
  N/A.

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]?
 
  N/A.

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.
 
  N/A.

### 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?
 
  Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?
   
    No.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
   
    The document is Proposed Standard.  It describes a mechanism for compressing a CBOR stream that requires interoperabilty among implementations.  Yes.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.
   
    Yes.  There was no discussion, because there are no disclosures.

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.
   
    Yes.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.
   
    The obsolete reference to 7049 is in the Acknowledgments and is intentional.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

    No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
   
    N/A.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.
   
    No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?
   
    No.

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.
   
    No.

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][12]).
   
    Describe?  How?  I reviewed it.  It’s clear and complete.

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.
   
    N/A.

[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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
2022-05-06
05 Barry Leiba Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-05-06
05 Barry Leiba Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from Informational
2022-05-06
05 Barry Leiba
# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2023.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering …
# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2023.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup to give helpful context to Last Call and
Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in
completing it, is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further
described in [RFC 4858][2], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## 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 CBOR working group is relatively small in terms of active participants, but among those it represents strong concurrence.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
  No.  There was a proposal in mid-2021 to add tags for records, and that proposal had a reasonable amount of discussion, starting here:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/IEfXAOBMYPfA8s5UACxCUNk0ddU/

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)?
 
  Yes.  Yes.  Not that I’m aware of.

### Additional Reviews

5. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?
 
  No.

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.
 
  N/A.

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]?
 
  N/A.

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.
 
  N/A.

### 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?
 
  Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?
   
    No.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
    Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
    Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all
    Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
   
    The document is Informational.  It describes a mechanism for compressing a CBOR stream that does not reach the bar for Standards Track.  Yes.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.
   
    Yes.  There was no discussion, because there are no disclosures.

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.
   
    Yes.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.
   
    The obsolete reference to 7049 is in the Acknowledgments and is intentional.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

    No.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
   
    N/A.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.
   
    No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If they exist, what is the
    plan for their completion?
   
    No.

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.
   
    No.

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][12]).
   
    Describe?  How?  I reviewed it.  It’s clear and complete.

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.
   
    N/A.

[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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
2022-05-06
05 Barry Leiba Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2022-05-03
05 Barry Leiba IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2022-04-20
05 Christian Amsüss Added to session: interim-2022-cbor-06
2022-04-20
05 Carsten Bormann New version available: draft-ietf-cbor-packed-05.txt
2022-04-20
05 Carsten Bormann New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Carsten Bormann)
2022-04-20
05 Carsten Bormann Uploaded new revision
2022-02-13
04 Carsten Bormann New version available: draft-ietf-cbor-packed-04.txt
2022-02-13
04 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Carsten Bormann)
2022-02-13
04 Carsten Bormann Uploaded new revision
2021-11-03
03 Christian Amsüss Added to session: IETF-112: cbor  Thu-1430
2021-08-13
03 Carsten Bormann New version available: draft-ietf-cbor-packed-03.txt
2021-08-13
03 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Carsten Bormann)
2021-08-13
03 Carsten Bormann Uploaded new revision
2021-08-13
02 (System) Document has expired
2021-07-16
02 Christian Amsüss Added to session: IETF-111: cbor  Fri-1430
2021-03-24
02 Barry Leiba Notification list changed to barryleiba@computer.org because the document shepherd was set
2021-03-24
02 Barry Leiba Document shepherd changed to Barry Leiba
2021-03-08
02 Christian Amsüss Added to session: IETF-110: cbor  Mon-1530
2021-02-09
02 Carsten Bormann New version available: draft-ietf-cbor-packed-02.txt
2021-02-09
02 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Carsten Bormann)
2021-02-09
02 Carsten Bormann Uploaded new revision
2021-01-27
01 Carsten Bormann New version available: draft-ietf-cbor-packed-01.txt
2021-01-27
01 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Carsten Bormann)
2021-01-27
01 Carsten Bormann Uploaded new revision
2020-11-10
00 Francesca Palombini Added to session: IETF-109: cbor  Thu-1430
2020-09-30
00 Francesca Palombini This document now replaces draft-bormann-cbor-packed instead of None
2020-09-30
00 Carsten Bormann New version available: draft-ietf-cbor-packed-00.txt
2020-09-30
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2020-09-30
00 Carsten Bormann Set submitter to "Carsten Bormann " and sent approval email to group chairs: cbor-chairs@ietf.org
2020-09-30
00 Carsten Bormann Uploaded new revision