There continues to be a disagreement on whether or not implementers should implement the application/did+cbor media type. The specification needs to mention this since it was a topic of many debates in the DID WG. Implementers should know that not all WG members felt that application/did+cbor was an appropriate use of CBOR.

Yes, it's easy to implement because it's just a translation of JSON -> CBOR -- but that's really it's key use. As an exemplar for easy implementation, not as an encoding that takes advantage of many of the features that others have come to expect with CBOR. Namely, it doesn't provide the sorts of storage savings that many CBOR representations do.

All of this needs to be called out in the NOTE that is published.