ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-bormann-cbor-04.txt> (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)) to Proposed Standard

2013-08-09 20:12:07
On Aug 9, 2013, at 4:56 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 
wrote:
Actually I just want it in writing because my past experience of a similar 
platform type spec was that it was just another option for developers right 
up to the point where it was published when I found myself in a BOF where the 
members were being told that they 'had' to use the IETF platform for their 
work because that is what had been 'decided'.

People say that a lot.   It's true that code reuse is an argument in favor of 
doing one thing over another, but there are lots of other relevant arguments, 
not the least of which is "it doesn't work well."   This second argument 
carries just as much weight as the first.   The bottom line is that there is 
nothing the IESG can do to prevent people from making this claim, but working 
group chairs should understand that it is not binding—it's just one thing to 
consider among many.

I recommend reading RFC 1958.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>