Carsten Bormann <c...@tzi.org> wrote:
> We had interesting discussions yesterday about how to fix the
> media-type and content-format registrations for CBOR-based anima
> vouchers.
Thank you for your input, and for trying to remove yourself from the loop.
> I’m growing a bit tired of dispensing the ancient wizardry that is
> required each time such a registration is needed, so I started writing
> it up:
>
https://cabo.github.io/cbor-media-types/draft-bormann-cbor-defining-media-types.html
> Comments and PRs very welcome.
I did find reading it invoked a new appreciation for Arcane Wizardry.
Specifically, I found that sections 3 and 4 didn't tell me anything that I
recognized as important for filing in the template.
"The Encoding considerations are often used in a way that is different from
the intention in Section 4.8 of [RFC6838], which is a simple selection
between "binary" and various alternatives that are now all obsolete. "
so, really, it's always binary now?
Maybe, just say that somewhere.
I don't think you should hide the example in the appendix.
Rather, I think that you should make it the core of the document, explaining
each bit of arcana. If it's worth publishing this as a new RFC, then it's
worth obsoleting RFC6838. Otherwise, I suggest some nice HTML, maybe in the
new-fangled single-hop-over-building wiki.
("Go big, or go home")
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
