On 12/08/2019 23:59, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Aug 12, 2019, at 14:08, Ludwig Seitz wrote:
As far as I gather from the comments (especially from Carsten), we'd solve this
by referencing section 6 of RFC 7049. I will consult with my co-authors, but I
think this is the right solution.
That i
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 02:08:12PM +0200, Ludwig Seitz wrote:
> Hello Ben,
>
> thank you for your review. Comments inline.
>
> @co-authors: Please check if you agree with my proposed resolutions.
>
> /Ludwig
>
> On 30/07/2019 17:56, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > We should be consistent across examp
On Aug 12, 2019, at 14:08, Ludwig Seitz wrote:
>
> As far as I gather from the comments (especially from Carsten), we'd solve
> this by referencing section 6 of RFC 7049. I will consult with my co-authors,
> but I think this is the right solution.
That is not what I said.
Grüße, Carsten
si
Hello Ben,
thank you for your review. Comments inline.
@co-authors: Please check if you agree with my proposed resolutions.
/Ludwig
On 30/07/2019 17:56, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
We should be consistent across examples about whether the use of CBOR
diagnostic notation also requires a disclaimer a
