&gt; ...and even the rfc you refer to specifically states it has different goals (though, eliding specifics with pretty sad generalizations) [link to RFC7049, section 9]<p>You find those generalizations sad because that is the <i>acknowledgements</i> section!<p>If you start from the beginning, you only need to read three paragraphs to see that &quot;Appendix E lists some existing binary formats and discusses how well they do or do not fit the design objectives of the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR).&quot; [0]<p>If we look at Appendix E, [1] we find that section E.2 contains an explanation that you&#x27;re likely to be more satisfied with. [2] However, before you go off and read section E.2, I <i>strongly</i> urge you to read the couple of paragraphs in Appendix E, first. The authors of RFCs generally tend to try hard to remove redundancy in their prose, and later sections <i>often</i> elide information covered in earlier sections.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tools.ietf.org&#x2F;html&#x2F;rfc7049#section-1" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tools.ietf.org&#x2F;html&#x2F;rfc7049#section-1</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tools.ietf.org&#x2F;html&#x2F;rfc7049#appendix-E" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tools.ietf.org&#x2F;html&#x2F;rfc7049#appendix-E</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tools.ietf.org&#x2F;html&#x2F;rfc7049#appendix-E.2" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tools.ietf.org&#x2F;html&#x2F;rfc7049#appendix-E.2</a>