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/ >
