On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org>wrote:
> To the rest of the community: Does anyone else think it is not > appropriate to publish CBOR as a Proposed Standard, and see who uses > it? > I have two moderate concerns: 1. I haven’t seen any particularly convincing evidence that CBOR would, in production, achieve any meaningful reductions in serialization time or deserialization time or code footprint or memory footprint. 2. I think CBOR does too much; I’d discard half the features and see who uses *that*. Well, if it doesn’t take off they can always try CBOR-lite next year. But I do not see it as actively harmful, am not screaming or lying down in the road; go ahead and give it an RFC number and see what happens. I’d also like to compliment Barry on his restraint and courtesy in dealing with Phillip here; far more than I would have been able to muster. -T > > > In this case we have a specification that I am likely going to have to > argue > > against as flawed in every WG which might use it. > > Yes, I see your arguments, and I appreciate them. We need that kind > of input. I'll let the authors continue to address your comments as > they see they need to. But I'll also ask the rest of the community... > > To the rest of the community: What is your view of Phill's technical > arguments with CBOR? Do you agree that CBOR is flawed? > > Now, as I see it, a main argument you have, Phill, is that *no* new > binary encoding should be proposed as a standard without a working > group to study what's there, what's needed, what the goals should be, > and what the right approach is to fulfilling those goals. Am I > correct? > > With that model, the answer that your goals are valid but are > different to ours... would not be a valid one -- we would have to > agree on the goals, and only develop a standard that met that > agreement. Am I correct? > > To the rest of the community: Do you agree with that concern? Do you > think such an analysis and selection of common goals, leading to one > (or perhaps two) new binary encodings being proposed is what we should > be doing? Or is it acceptable to have work such as CBOR proposed > without that analysis? > > Barry >
