Tobias Looker <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with this concern but I may be miss understanding the > underlying proposal here. I get the inclination to favour A as the > option, but would it not involve changing the supported data type of a > parameter? As an implementer I can see how some would view this as a > breaking change specifically those who validate the value type of the > parameter in accordance with its IANA registration. I don't think we > should be encouraging a pattern where future specifications are able to > redefine the value types supported for a particular parameter.
CBOR specifically makes this kind of thing possible and easy. Of course, it breaks if you can't process the new type. You'll reject it. That's fine. You'll reject anything you don't undrstand. It's not backwards compatible. The sender has to know if the receiver can support it. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
