~sircmpwn/public-inbox

5 4

BARE RFC draft expired

Siva Mahadevan
Details
Message ID
<b3dbd8ad-a9c7-f021-50d8-dcfbbf96d6a9@svmhdvn.name>
DKIM signature
pass
Download raw message
Hi Drew,

I noticed that the BARE RFC draft has expired. The RFC is simple enough 
and seems quite stable. What is left to do for finalizing and publishing 
it as a full RFC?
Details
Message ID
<CFUFH6FT8G1I.3GG9ON5VOD0UH@taiga>
In-Reply-To
<b3dbd8ad-a9c7-f021-50d8-dcfbbf96d6a9@svmhdvn.name> (view parent)
DKIM signature
pass
Download raw message
Hi Siva! Would you be interested in helping with the next draft
revision? The main problem is that the next step is a lot of
bike-shedding with a relevant IETF working group, perhaps COBR.
Details
Message ID
<YZl5Tf88b/XJ+QlO@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<CFUFH6FT8G1I.3GG9ON5VOD0UH@taiga> (view parent)
DKIM signature
pass
Download raw message
Hi Drew and Siva,

On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 08:28:04AM +0100, Drew DeVault wrote:
> Hi Siva! Would you be interested in helping with the next draft
> revision? The main problem is that the next step is a lot of
> bike-shedding with a relevant IETF working group, perhaps COBR.

I would like to help even I've never done such a thing (and therefore I
have no idea what that entails.)
Siva Mahadevan
Details
Message ID
<YZsWi1fIqAO0goO0@think.localdomain>
In-Reply-To
<YZl5Tf88b/XJ+QlO@gmail.com> (view parent)
DKIM signature
pass
Download raw message
Drew DeVault wrote:
> Hi Siva! Would you be interested in helping with the next draft
> revision? The main problem is that the next step is a lot of
> bike-shedding with a relevant IETF working group, perhaps COBR.

Yes I am interested in helping out.

Jiri Vlasak wrote:
> I would like to help even I've never done such a thing (and therefore I
> have no idea what that entails.)

I also have no idea what it entails as well, perhaps we could work
together then.
Details
Message ID
<CFW591KHZ3VT.07URLX5Z24BC@taiga>
In-Reply-To
<YZsWi1fIqAO0goO0@think.localdomain> (view parent)
DKIM signature
pass
Download raw message
Great! Hopefully you two can work together to iterate this further.

The next steps, as I understand it, is to seek feedback from a relevant
IETF working group. CBOR is probably the most relevant. It will be a
difficult bikeshedding-heavy discussion, so good luck. Review the
meta-RFCs on the RFC process, or reach out to the IETF editors if you
have any questions.

The XML version of the draft is available from the IETF website. You can
render this with the xml2rfc tool. I might need to do something on my
end to give you access to submit updated draft revisions, please do the
research and let me know what I need to do to get you what you need.

Here are my notes for changes needed before the next draft:

- more examples
- example Address is incorrect - "123 Main St" rather than "Street"
- make uint/int canonical by requiring them to use the minimum necessary number
  of bits
- "an" mapping of values
- address union of one member, or of duplicate members

optional-type = "optional<" type ">"

should be:

optional-type = "optional<" non-enum-type ">"
Victorien Elvinger
Details
Message ID
<ce7f6992-3623-0ff0-8007-3c5f66a4feab@elvinger.fr>
In-Reply-To
<CFUFH6FT8G1I.3GG9ON5VOD0UH@taiga> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Hi everyone,

Happy to see some new activities about BARE :)
I could be happy to help.

Drew, I think you forget about NaN rejection.
My previous comment [1] may be helpful.

I have some new feedback about BARE. I will write another message later 
about that.

[1] 
https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/public-inbox/%3CC3NSE1PQKH0L.2GV2FPU59J4MK%40ashryn%3E#%3C8aa79361-f0ea-c7a0-d2ce-49caa41f3789@elvinger.fr%3E
Reply to thread Export thread (mbox)