Request for publication of Binary Application Record Encoding (BARE)

Message ID
DKIM signature
Download raw message
Dear Independent Submissions Editor,

I would like to ask you to consider publishing Binary Application Record
Encoding (BARE). If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me or the CC mailing list. Below is the requested information from the
submission [1]:

> The filename of the published internet draft that is being submitted.

draft-devault-bare-07.xml [2].

> The desired category (Informational or Experimental) of the RFC.


> A summary of related discussion of this document, if any, that has
> occurred in an IETF working group or in the IESG.

There has been no discussion in the IETF or IESG. However, there has
been considerable discussion in the technical community, including
implementers of BARE [3].

> An assertion that no IANA allocation in the document requires IETF
> Review or Standards Action. See RFC 8126 for a definition of these
> terms, and RFC 8726 for more information about how IANA requests are
> handled in Independent Stream documents. If the document cannot be
> published on the Independent Stream it should be sent to the IESG.

BARE I-D does not include a request to IANA.

> A statement of the purpose of publishing this document, its intended
> audience, its merits and significance.

The purpose of BARE is to encode application messages. The publication
aims to provide a standard that emphasizes concise messages, a
well-defined message scheme, broad compatibility with programming
environments, and ease of implementation.

The target audience is developers, including but not limited to
developers of Web applications, Internet services, Internet protocols,
or applications that store data.

BARE is well suited for encoding communication between programs, as it
aims for a well-defined schema, broad compatibility, and backward and
forward message compatibility. BARE emphasizes concise messages and
simplicity, and is therefore suitable for representing structured data
under strict message length constraints in a variety of contexts.

> Suggested names and contact information for one or more competent and
> independent potential reviewers for the document. This can speed the
> review and approval process.

I strongly believe that anyone from the CBOR group can comment on BARE.

Have a nice day,
Jiri Vlasak

[1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/
[2]: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-devault-bare-07.html
[3]: https://git.sr.ht/~qeef/draft-devault-bare/
Reply to thread Export thread (mbox)