On 08/10/2013 03:33 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 8/9/2013 6:09 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
So some kind of statement that CBOR is one point in a design
space (as opposed to an optimal solution for some set of
design objectives) would be worthwhile.
huh?
That's fair. My suggestion above wasn't a model of clarity;-)
a statement beyond the opening sentence of the introduction and
its third paragraph?
And now that I read that again, yes, it does what I was
trying try to ask for well enough.
S.
worthwhile to whom and for what? it's a spec (or perhaps a meta-spec.)
it provides a capability. it needs to specify the what and how well
enough to be usable.
while ietf culture permits specifications to have quite a variety of
commentary, historical or contextual discussion is not an essential part
of the document, and certainly not discussion cast in a manner to
denigrate the current spec.
Counter-marketing that has the current spec self-deprecatingly casting
itself as only one of many seems mostly worthwhile to get people to
avoid using it.
exp makes sense if there is doubt that it is technically workable, not
because its success in the market is questionable. we give ps all the
time to specs that have little clear market and go on gain small market
use.
from what i've seen, this is a carefully researched and crafted
mechanism and i haven't noted anyone challenging it on basic technical
grounds.
d/