Hello Donald,
Thanks for your prompt reply.
Look below for EV> (my outlook is broken for IETF traffic)
TL;DR we agree on most point(barring some points that are merely a matter of
taste), but before requesting the IETF Last Call, I want to clarify the CBOR
tag section 2.4 with CBOR WG & ADs.
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 i
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
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 Eric,
Thanks for your prompt reply,
See replies below at , deleting some of the areas where we already
agree or you found my response adequate. In the cases where you didn't
respond to my response, I assume my response was adequate.
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 10:37 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
wrot
