;> rfc7042bis....@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Int-area] The CBOR section of draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis...
>>
>>
>>> I welcome feedback from the community on this question: should section
>> 2.4 be in draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis ?
>>
>> I woul
.@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] The CBOR section of draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis...
>
>
> > 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
Op 13 sep. 2023 om 20:22 heeft Donald Eastlake het volgende
geschreven:
> 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).
Yes.
> My main concern is that rfc7042bis
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 11:57 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
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 ta
