This is strictly out of your purview. The Project Editor and the Project
Editors Group that merges papers into the Working Draft (
https://github.com/cplusplus/draft) decide this.

Of course, you can always provide friendly suggestions. These days, the
numbers do not matter nearly as much, so much as making sure your stable
tags are done properly. See
https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/wiki/Specification-Style-Guidelines for
more details about writing wording.

I would also caution you about just proposing a Byte Stream off the hip.
There is already an (informal) IO group working on some of this stuff. I
suggest you find and contact Niall Douglass, who is spearheading those
efforts.

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:16 PM Lyberta <lyberta_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I'm writing more detailing wording of my byte IO proposal:
>
> https://github.com/Lyberta/cpp-io
>
> I've found that the most logical way to allocate a section for it is to
> move legacy text streams from 29 to 29.2 (and eventually to 29.3) and
> put byte IO as 29.1.
>
> Since I plan to work on Unicode streams too, my numbering plan is this:
>
> 29 Input/output
> 29.1 Byte streams (my proposal)
> 29.2 Unicode streams (to be proposed later)
> 29.3 Legacy text streams (<iostream> et al)
> 29.4 File system (<filesystem>)
> 29.5 C library files
>
> Is this a good idea?
>
> _______________________________________________
> SG16 Unicode mailing list
> Unicode_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
>