- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 18:08:06 +0000
- To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl@ietf.org
-------- In message <57A0A585.4060402@tzi.org>, Carsten Bormann writes: >But I was interested in whether CDDL can be used as a specification >language here, I'm guess it is this draft ? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl/ >For -09, we are discussing to add a separate machine-readable (JSON) >encoding to be used by tools, in addition to the human-readable format >to be used by humans. (No intention to make both the same, that would >be a classical mistake.) I don't have an informed opinion about CDDL at this point, but having two parallel specifications sounds like a clas^H^H^H^Hantiquity mistake to me. How do you plan to make sure they both say the same thing ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2016 18:10:49 UTC