As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
This version is dated 1 November 2019.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Internet Standard. This is the proper type of RFC, as CBOR has achieved a high degree of technical maturity and its implementations have obtained successful operational experience. This is indicated in the title page header.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format whose design goals include the possibility of extremely small code size, fairly small message size, and extensibility without the need for version negotiation. These design goals make it different from earlier binary serializations such as ASN.1 and MessagePack.
Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
It is worth noting the controversy about the text on how generic decoders handle duplicate map keys. While RFC7049 stated that decoders cannot prescribe a specific handling of duplicated map keys, except it might consider the map malformed, part of the working group wanted the document to state more precisely what the decoder should do, and possibly what the protocol using CBOR should do (e.g. use first entry). This was considered, but would have made existing implementation non-compliant with this specification. Consensus was difficult to call, but in the end some text was added to explain the different options (reject the map, accept the map including the duplicates, lose some entries) and give guidance to implementations on what is expected of the application in every one of these cases. (See section 5.6)
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
There exist a significant number of implementations of this specification, see https://cbor.io/impls.html for a non-exhaustive list.
Several of the working group participants have provided continuous reviews to the document, and have agreed that the document is ready for publication.
Francesca Palombini is the Document Shepherd. Barry Leiba is the Responsible Area Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
I have reviewed this document several times during its lifetime, and believe it is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
The authors are in full compliance with BCPs 78 and 79 and there is no known IPR directly related to this document.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
The working group consensus is solid. One issue has created more contention, and is reported in (2).
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
Although some points were contentious (see above), noone has threatened an appeal or indicated extreme discontent.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
No nits were found.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No required formal review was needed for this revision.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
There are no downward normative references. There are 3 non-RFC normative references: ECMA262, IEEE754, and IEEE Std. 1003.1 (TIME_T).
IEEE 754 (now 2019 edition) is in a very high state of maturity.
The regular expression part referenced from ECMA 262 also is at the needed level of maturity (the document only references the approximate format as a tag validity criteria).
The UNIX ("Posix") time format described in IEEE Std. 1003.1 is also very stable and well-understood in the community.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
Yes, this document will obsolete RFC7049. That is clearly stated in the title page, abstract and introduction.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).
The IANA considerations section is different from RFC7049 in the fact that it points to the registries that were created in RFC7049. It additionally requires IANA to update the references of these existing registries to point to this specification. For one existing registry, the contact and change control have been updated. For the Tags Registry, the registration policy has changed, with consensus of the working group.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
No new IANA registries have been created.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc.
No automated checks were performed.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with any of the recommended validation tools (https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?
The document does not contain any YANG module.