Hi, On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 11:57 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyn...@cisco.com> wrote: > 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 ?
I would point out that this was discussed in the CBOR WG. See, in particular the thread starting at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/I49hlrHka1BUPAq8oCtO77xElvc/ including the message at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/h2FGrQ7Uw0PX4NdHO7Rn07rCbtI/ which indicates that it was decided "to leave Ethernet tags for Donald's rfc7042bis". On the other hand, moving the specification of the tags to a separate document would make it more parallel to the case of the DNS RRTYPEs which are listed in RFC 7042 and thus in rfc7042bis but specified in RFC 7043. Although, as I recall, in that case the separate draft to specify them was already in progress when reference to that draft was added to RFC 7042 (actually draft rfc5342bis). One of the ideas of the RFC 5342 -> RFC 7942 -> rfc7042bis document is to gather together in place information about using IEEE identifiers in IETF protocols including appropriate references to other documents. My main concern is that rfc7042bis would be slowed down by making the specification of the tags a separate draft referenced from rfc7042bis. But if it were AD sponsored or considered to already have the consensus of the INTAREA WG, since it is just the result of mechanically splitting a document for which publication was already requested, and was IETF last called in parallel with rfc7042bis, then it should not have much effect on timing. > Regards > > -éric > > PS: I prefer to handle this question *before* the IETF last call and the IESG > evaluation: the earlier, the better. I agree that handling this earlier is better. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
