Dear authors, CBOR/INTAREA WGs, fellow ADs, When doing my AD review of draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis, I find the section 2.4 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis#section-2.4 ) "CBOR tags" out of the scope of this IETF draft, which is more about the use of IEEE identifiers by IETF protocols. The section 2.4 is about how to tag IEEE tags/addresses in CBOR, i.e., how to serialize/represent/encode IEEE identifiers in IETF protocols.
In short, I do not think that this section 2.4 belongs to this I-D and would strongly prefer to have another IETF draft for those CBOR tags. The CBOR tags for IEEE related identifiers/code points can be done indeed in CBOR WG or in any other WG per CBOR charter: "There are a number of additional CBOR tagged types and CBOR related media type specifications that are currently adopted by the working group, are work items in other working groups, or exist as individual submissions." So, it is fine for me to have this new short work (text is already ready) in int-area, or cbor, or even AD sponsored by myself. I welcome feedback from the community on this question: should section 2.4 be in draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis ? Regards -éric PS: I prefer to handle this question *before* the IETF last call and the IESG evaluation: the earlier, the better. _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
