On Aug 5, 2013, at 8:43 PM, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 7. The format must be extensible, with the extended data being able >> to be parsed by earlier parsers. > > > This is interesting, and I would be willing to give up several kinds of > extensibility to get more simplicity. Perhaps this is your greatest > issue, and I don't think you are necessarily wrong. As an IoT end-user of this kind of format, I would have no issues with giving up quite a bit of extensibility for more simplicity. If that is the major push-back, then I think we should look at reassessing the need for e.g. tags. Zach -- Zach Shelby, Chief Nerd, Sensinode Ltd. http://www.sensinode.com @SensinodeIoT Mobile: +358 40 7796297 Twitter: @zach_shelby LinkedIn: http://fi.linkedin.com/in/zachshelby 6LoWPAN Book: http://6lowpan.net _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
