<no hat>
On 2/20/14, 2:28 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
On 20 Feb 2014, at 11:37 am, Phillip Hallam-Baker
<hallam(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
My main concern is the process question. I really don't care whether CBOR is
a PROPOSED STANDARD or whatever. What I do care about is if I am told that I
have to use it because that is the IETF standard for binary encoding. And
what I care most about is the risk that this approach of 'its our ball and
only we will decide who gets to play' is going to be repeated.
I have to agree with Phillip on this point, and I hope the answer is
uncontroversial -- that just by virtue of being an IETF standard, we don't
start requiring people to use something already defined if their use case is
vaguely similar.
When something is a standard, it means you need to use it in the way
specified; it doesn't mean you have to choose to use it, even in other
standards.
Yeah, we're off the rails here, and it's becoming a bad habit. People
seem to like playing "what if" games about how bad things can get if
everyone loses their heads. WGs and spec developers should always use
what makes sense (standard or no). Rough consensus and running code,
thank you very much.
Eliot