On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Barry Leiba
<barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)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