Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Typed Arrays
draft-ietf-cbor-array-tags-08

[Ballot comment]
Based on Henk Birkholz's review for the IoT directorate.

Thank you Carsten for this well-written and concise ;-) document and thank you Henk for the review.

-éric

[Ballot comment]
§2.1:

>    | s    | 0 for unsigned integer or float, 1 for signed integer |

This is a very minor comment, since it is clear from the remainder of the document, but this would be a bit easier to read as "0 for float or unsigned integer, 1 for signed integer" (thereby making it clear that "unsigned" is not intended to apply to "float").

[Ballot comment]
Section 1.1.  Per “this document uses the notation familiar from the programming language C” and subsequent reference in Section 3.1, please provide a reference to the relevant C standard.

Section 3.2.  Please provide a reference for a version of C++.

Section 8.2.  Per [TypedArray], please provide a URL or more complete citation

[Ballot comment]
Section 3.1.2

I don't think we can get away with defining column-major order
implicitly by example and comparison to row-major order.  This is
particularly poingiant given that we do not limit ourselves to
two-dimensional arrays.

Section 7

I'm not sure that I understand the scenariao described by "an attacker
might substitute a Uint8ClampedArray" and how an application would get
unexpected processing semantics, but the general sentiment it indicates of
"applications need to verify any expectations they have" seems important
to cover.

Section 8.2

I couldn't find a document to go with [TypedArray]; the one
promising-looking search result ended up just redirecting me to
[TypedArrayES6].

[Ballot comment]
Hello,

thank you for this document. I have a minor question.

  IEEE 754 binary floating numbers are always signed.  Therefore, for
  the float variants ("f" == 1), there is no need to distinguish
  between signed and unsigned variants; the "s" bit is always zero.
Since IEEE 754 binary floating numbers are always signed, I would have thought that s=1 would be used in conjunction with f=1. For my understanding, what was the reason for choosing s=0 instead?

Thank you

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-cbor-array-tags-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the CBOR Tags registry on the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags/

a set of early registrations will be made permanent and their references will all be changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

The following table is the list of the CBOR tags that are to be made permanent:

+------+-------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Tag | Data Item | Semantics |
+------+-------------------+----------------------------------------+
| 64 | byte string | uint8 Typed Array |
| 65 | byte string | uint16, big endian, Typed Array |
| 66 | byte string | uint32, big endian, Typed Array |
| 67 | byte string | uint64, big endian, Typed Array |
| 68 | byte string | uint8 Typed Array, clamped arithmetic |
| 69 | byte string | uint16, little endian, Typed Array |
| 70 | byte string | uint32, little endian, Typed Array |
| 71 | byte string | uint64, little endian, Typed Array |
| 72 | byte string | sint8 Typed Array |
| 73 | byte string | sint16, big endian, Typed Array |
| 74 | byte string | sint32, big endian, Typed Array |
| 75 | byte string | sint64, big endian, Typed Array |
| 76 | byte string | (reserved) |
| 77 | byte string | sint16, little endian, Typed Array |
| 78 | byte string | sint32, little endian, Typed Array |
| 79 | byte string | sint64, little endian, Typed Array |
| 80 | byte string | IEEE 754 binary16, big endian, Typed |
| | | Array |
| 81 | byte string | IEEE 754 binary32, big endian, Typed |
| | | Array |
| 82 | byte string | IEEE 754 binary64, big endian, Typed |
| | | Array |
| 83 | byte string | IEEE 754 binary128, big endian, Typed |
| | | Array |
| 84 | byte string | IEEE 754 binary16, little endian, |
| | | Typed Array |
| 85 | byte string | IEEE 754 binary32, little endian, |
| | | Typed Array |
| 86 | byte string | IEEE 754 binary64, little endian, |
| | | Typed Array |
| 87 | byte string | IEEE 754 binary128, little endian, |
| | | Typed Array |
| 40 | array of two | Multi-dimensional Array, row-major |
| | arrays* | order |
| 1040 | array of two | Multi-dimensional Array, column-major |
| | arrays* | order |
| 41 | array | Homogeneous Array |
+------+-------------------+----------------------------------------+

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-09-05):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-cbor-array-tags@ietf.org, Francesca Palombini , cbor@ietf.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, cbor-chairs@ietf.org, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Typed Arrays) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Concise Binary Object Representation
Maintenance and Extensions WG (cbor) to consider the following document: -
'Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags for Typed Arrays'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-09-05. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) 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.

  The present document makes use of this extensibility to define a
  number of CBOR tags for typed arrays of numeric data, as well as two
  additional tags for multi-dimensional and homogeneous arrays.  It is
  intended as the reference document for the IANA registration of the
  CBOR tags defined.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-array-tags/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cbor-array-tags/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

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 24 February 2012.

(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?

  The type of RFC being requested is proposed standard.
  It is expected that future standard track documents will make make use of
  and reference this document normatively.
  The RFC type is clearly indicated on the title page.

(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:

Technical Summary

  The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) 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.

  The present document makes use of this extensibility to define a
  number of CBOR tags for typed arrays of numeric data, as well as two
  additional tags for multi-dimensional and homogeneous arrays.  It is
  intended as the reference document for the IANA registration of the
  CBOR tags defined.

Working Group Summary

  There were two point that could be considered as a controversy.
  The first if there should be a rule about using big endian or little
  endian in the case of deterministic encoding. The WG consensus result
  was no, but that may not reflect the view of all individuals in the
  working group.
  Secondly, regarding tag 68 (Uint8ClampedArray):
  on one side, it was noted that such a tag indicates a property of the
  processing more than just the item's encoding. On the other side, it was
  noted that that allows to identify more precisely what the data type
  is, which is a desirable feature of CBOR, and that this does not
  differ from other tags such as MIME. In general, this brings up the
  point of using CBOR tags to identify types of objects in protocols
  that exists elsewhere in an object oriented system, such as in other
  standards or other implementations (JavaScript/ES6 for
  “Uint8ClampedArray”) rather than in JSON. The WG consensus was
  towards this being a desirable feature, and the tag was kept in the
  document.

  Another more general note, there exist different perception of
  usefulness of some of the concepts in the document (such as homogenous
  arrays).

Document Quality

  There is no existing implementations of the specifications, as far as
  I can tell. The document went through several thorough reviews during
  the time as working group document, including broader community
  reviews. No expert review was requested, although an expert review was
  done during early registration of IANA parameters defined in this
  document.

Personnel

  Francesca Palombini is the Document Shepherd.
  Alexey Melnikov 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.

  The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document and finds it ready
  for publication. Moreover, the Document Shepherd has kept track
  of the several reviews of the documents and made sure all comments
  were addressed.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns.

(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.

  No broader reviews or from a particular areas are needed.

(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.

  The Document Shepherd has no such concerns or issues.

(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 author has indicated that he does not know of any additional IPR
  that needs to be disclosed. (24th of July)

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No.

(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 behind the document is solid, according
  to WG last calls, in room feeling during several meetings, and off
  line discussion.

(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.)

  No threats of appeal or extreme discontent have been made public.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  No ID nits were found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No such criteria apply.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(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?

  No.

(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.

  No downrefs are there.

(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.

  No RFCs status will be changed by publication of this document.

(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).

  IANA registration was already done at the time of this review, as
  a result of early allocation.

(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 such new registries.

(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, etc.

  No automated checks were done.

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 24 February 2012.

(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?

  The type of RFC being requested is proposed standard.
  It is expected that future standard track documents will make make use of
  and reference this document normatively.
  The RFC type is clearly indicated on the title page.

(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:

Technical Summary

  The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) 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.

  The present document makes use of this extensibility to define a
  number of CBOR tags for typed arrays of numeric data, as well as two
  additional tags for multi-dimensional and homogeneous arrays.  It is
  intended as the reference document for the IANA registration of the
  CBOR tags defined.

Working Group Summary

  There were two point that could be considered as a controversy.
  The first if there should be a rule about using big endian or little
  endian in the case of deterministic encoding. The WG consensus result
  was no, but that may not reflect the view of all individuals in the
  working group.
  Secondly, regarding tag 68 (Uint8ClampedArray):
  on one side, it was noted that such a tag indicates a property of the
  processing more than just the item's encoding. On the other side, it was
  noted that that allows to identify more precisely what the data type
  is, which is a desireable feature of CBOR, and that this does not
  differ from other tags such as MIME. In general, this brings up the
  point of using CBOR tags to identify types of objects in protocols
  that exists elsewhere in an object oriented system, such as in other
  standards or other implementations (JavaScript/ES6 for
  “Uint8ClampedArray”) rather than in JSON. The WG consensus was
  towards this being a desirable feature, and the tag was kept in the
  document.

  Another more general note, there exist different perception of
  usefulness of some of the concepts in the document (such as homogenous
  arrays).

Document Quality

  There is no existing implementations of the specifications, as far as
  I can tell. The document went through several thorough reviews during
  the time as working group document, including broader community
  reviews. No expert review was requested, although an expert review was
  done during early registration of IANA parameters defined in this
  document.

Personnel

  Francesca Palombini is the Document Shepherd.
  Alexey Melnikov 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.

  The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document and finds it ready
  for publication. Moreover, the Document Shepherd has kept track
  of the several reviews of the documents and made sure all comments
  were addressed.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns.

(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.

  No broader reviews or from a particular areas are needed.

(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.

  The Document Shepherd has no such concerns or issues.

(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 author has indicated that he does not know of any additional IPR
  that needs to be disclosed. (24th of July)

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No.

(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 behind the document is solid, according
  to WG last calls, in room feeling during several meetings, and off
  line discussion.

(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.)

  No threats of appeal or extreme discontent have been made public.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  No ID nits were found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No such criteria apply.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(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?

  No.

(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.

  No downrefs are there.

(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.

  No RFCs status will be changed by publication of this document.

(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).

  IANA registration was already done at the time of this review, as
  a result of early allocation.

(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 such new registries.

(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, etc.

  No automated checks were done.

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 24 February 2012.

(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?

  The type of RFC being requested is informational.
  This is the appropriate track.
  The RFC type is clearly indicated on the title page.

(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:

Technical Summary

  The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) 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.

  The present document makes use of this extensibility to define a
  number of CBOR tags for typed arrays of numeric data, as well as two
  additional tags for multi-dimensional and homogeneous arrays.  It is
  intended as the reference document for the IANA registration of the
  CBOR tags defined.

Working Group Summary

  There were two point that could be considered as a controversy.
  The first if there should be a rule about using big endian or little
  endian in the case of deterministic encoding. The WG consensus result
  was no, but that may not reflect the view of all individuals in the
  working group.
  Secondly, regarding tag 68 (Uint8ClampedArray):
  on one side, it was noted that such a tag indicates a property of the
  processing more than just the item's encoding. On the other side, it was
  noted that that allows to identify more precisely what the data type
  is, which is a desireable feature of CBOR, and that this does not
  differ from other tags such as MIME. In general, this brings up the
  point of using CBOR tags to identify types of objects in protocols
  that exists elsewhere in an object oriented system, such as in other
  standards or other implementations (JavaScript/ES6 for
  “Uint8ClampedArray”) rather than in JSON. The WG consensus was
  towards this being a desirable feature, and the tag was kept in the
  document.

  Another more general note, there exist different perception of
  usefulness of some of the concepts in the document (such as homogenous
  arrays).

Document Quality

  There is no existing implementations of the specifications, as far as
  I can tell. The document went through several thorough reviews during
  the time as working group document, including broader community
  reviews. No expert review was requested, although an expert review was
  done during early registration of IANA parameters defined in this
  document.

Personnel

  Francesca Palombini is the Document Shepherd.
  Alexey Melnikov 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.

  The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document and finds it ready
  for publication. Moreover, the Document Shepherd has kept track
  of the several reviews of the documents and made sure all comments
  were addressed.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns.

(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.

  No broader reviews or from a particular areas are needed.

(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.

  The Document Shepherd has no such concerns or issues.

(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 author has indicated that he does not know of any additional IPR
  that needs to be disclosed. (24th of July)

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No.

(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 behind the document is solid, according
  to WG last calls, in room feeling during several meetings, and off
  line discussion.

(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.)

  No threats of appeal or extreme discontent have been made public.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  No ID nits were found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No such criteria apply.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(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?

  No.

(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.

  No downrefs are there.

(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.

  No RFCs status will be changed by publication of this document.

(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).

  IANA registration was already done at the time of this review, as
  a result of early allocation.

(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 such new registries.

(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, etc.

  No automated checks were done.

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 24 February 2012.

(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?

  The type of RFC being requested is informational.
  This is the appropriate track.
  The RFC type is clearly indicated on the title page.

(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:

Technical Summary

  The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) 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.

  The present document makes use of this extensibility to define a
  number of CBOR tags for typed arrays of numeric data, as well as two
  additional tags for multi-dimensional and homogeneous arrays.  It is
  intended as the reference document for the IANA registration of the
  CBOR tags defined.

Working Group Summary

  There were two point that could be considered as a controversy.
  The first if there should be a rule about using big endian or little
  endian in the case of deterministic encoding. The WG consensus result
  was no, but that may not reflect the view of all individuals in the
  working group.
  Secondly, regarding tag 68 (Uint8ClampedArray):
  on one side, it was noted that such a tag indicates a property of the
  processing more than just the item's encoding. On the other side, it was
  noted that that allows to identify more precisely what the data type
  is, which is a desireable feature of CBOR, and that this does not
  differ from other tags such as MIME. In general, this brings up the
  point of using CBOR tags to identify types of objects in protocols
  that exists elsewhere in an object oriented system, such as in other
  standards or other implementations (JavaScript/ES6 for
  “Uint8ClampedArray”) rather than in JSON. The WG consensus was
  towards this being a desirable feature, and the tag was kept in the
  document.

  Another more general note, there exist different perception of
  usefulness of some of the concepts in the document (such as homogenous
  arrays).

Document Quality

  There is no existing implementations of the specifications, as far as
  I can tell. The document went through several thorough reviews during
  the time as working group document, including broader community
  reviews. No expert review was requested, although an expert review was
  done during early registration of IANA parameters defined in this
  document.

Personnel

  Francesca Palombini is the Document Shepherd.
  Alexey Melnikov 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.

  The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document and finds it ready
  for publication. Moreover, the Document Shepherd has kept track
  of the several reviews of the documents and made sure all comments
  were addressed.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns.

(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.

  No broader reviews or from a particular areas are needed.

(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.

  The Document Shepherd has no such concerns or issues.

(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 author has indicated that he does not know of any additional IPR
  that needs to be disclosed. (24th of July)

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No.

(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 behind the document is solid, according
  to WG last calls, in room feeling during several meetings, and off
  line discussion.

(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.)

  No threats of appeal or extreme discontent have been made public.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  No ID nits were found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No such criteria apply.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(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?

  No.

(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.

  No downrefs are there.

(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.

  No RFCs status will be changed by publication of this document.

(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).

  IANA registration was already done at the time of this review, as
  a result of early allocation.

(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 such new registries.

(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, etc.

  No automated checks were done.

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 24 February 2012.

(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?

  The type of RFC being requested is informational.
  This is the appropriate track.
  The RFC type is clearly indicated on the title page.

(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:

Technical Summary

  The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) 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.

  The present document makes use of this extensibility to define a
  number of CBOR tags for typed arrays of numeric data, as well as two
  additional tags for multi-dimensional and homogeneous arrays.  It is
  intended as the reference document for the IANA registration of the
  CBOR tags defined.

Working Group Summary

  There was one point that could be considered as a controversy: the
  issue on if there should be a rule about using big endian or little
  endian in the case of deterministic encoding. The WG consensus result
  was no, but that may not reflect the view of all individuals in the
  working group.
  Another more general note, there exist different perception of
  usefulness of some of the concepts in the document (such as homogenous
  arrays).

Document Quality

  There is no existing implementations of the specifications, as far as
  I can tell. The document went through several thorough reviews during
  the time as working group document, including broader community
  reviews. No expert review was requested, although an expert review was
  done during early registration of IANA parameters defined in this
  document.

Personnel

  Francesca Palombini is the Document Shepherd.
  Alexey Melnikov 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.

  The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document and finds it ready
  for publication. Moreover, the Document Shepherd has kept track
  of the several reviews of the documents and made sure all comments
  were addressed.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns.

(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.

  No broader reviews or from a particular areas are needed.

(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.

  The Document Shepherd has no such concerns or issues.

(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 author has indicated that he does not know of any additional IPR
  that needs to be disclosed. (24th of July)

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No.

(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 behind the document is solid, according
  to WG last calls, in room feeling during several meetings, and off
  line discussion.

(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.)

  No threats of appeal or extreme discontent have been made public.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  No ID nits were found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No such criteria apply.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(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?

  No.

(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.

  No downrefs are there.

(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.

  No RFCs status will be changed by publication of this document.

(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).

  IANA registration was already done at the time of this review, as
  a result of early allocation.

(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 such new registries.

(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, etc.

  No automated checks were done.

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 24 February 2012.

(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?

  The type of RFC being requested is informational.
  This is the appropriate track.
  The RFC type is clearly indicated on the title page.

(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:

Technical Summary

  The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 7049) 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.

  The present document makes use of this extensibility to define a
  number of CBOR tags for typed arrays of numeric data, as well as two
  additional tags for multi-dimensional and homogeneous arrays.  It is
  intended as the reference document for the IANA registration of the
  CBOR tags defined.

Working Group Summary

  There was one point that could be considered as a controversy: the
  issue on if there should be a rule about using big endian or little
  endian in the case of deterministic encoding. The WG consensus result
  was no, but that may not reflect the view of all individuals in the
  working group.
  Another more general note, there exist different perception of
  usefulness of some of the concepts in the document (such as homogenous
  arrays).

Document Quality

  There is no existing implementations of the specifications, as far as
  I can tell. The document went through several thorough reviews during
  the time as working group document. No expert review was needed nor
  done.

Personnel

  Francesca Palombini is the Document Shepherd.
  Alexey Melnikov 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.

  The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document and finds it ready
  for publication. Moreover, the Document Shepherd has kept track
  of the several reviews of the documents and made sure all comments
  were addressed.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns.

(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.

  No broader reviews or from a particular areas are needed.

(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.

  The Document Shepherd has no such concerns or issues.

(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 author has indicated that he does not know of any additional IPR
  that needs to be disclosed. (24th of July)

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No.

(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 behind the document is solid, according
  to WG last calls, in room feeling during several meetings, and off
  line discussion.

(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.)

  No threats of appeal or extreme discontent have been made public.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  No ID nits were found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No such criteria apply.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(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?

  No.

(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.

  No downrefs are there.

(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.

  No RFCs status will be changed by publication of this document.

(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).

  IANA registration was already done at the time of this review, as
  a result of early allocation.

(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 such new registries.

(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, etc.

  No automated checks were done.