Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, Francesca Palombini <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, The IESG <email@example.com> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)' to Internet Standard (draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis-16.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)' (draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis-16.txt) as Internet Standard This document is the product of the Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Murray Kucherawy and Barry Leiba. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis/
Technical Summary: 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: 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) Document Quality: 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. Personnel: Francesca Palombini is the Document Shepherd. Barry Leiba is the Responsible Area Director.