* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Cbor Status Pages

Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions (Active WG)
Art Area: Adam Roach, Alexey Melnikov, Ben Campbell | 2017-Jan-09 —  
Chairs
 
 


IETF-102 cbor minutes

Session 2018-07-17 1330-1530: Van Horne - Audio stream - cbor chatroom

Minutes

minutes-102-cbor-00 minutes



          CBOR WG Meeting
          IETF 102 - Montreal
          Tuesday, July 17, 2018, 13:30 - 15:30
          Chairs: Barry Leiba, Francesca Palombini
          
          
          Minute takers: David Waltermire
          
          
          * Introduction [10'] : Chairs - slides
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides-102-cbor-chairs-00
          
          ----------------------------------
          
            Agenda bashing and status update
          Chairs provided a short status update based on content in the slides.
          
          
          WG documents: - slides
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides-102-cbor-consolidated-01
          
          * CDDL [60'] : Carsten
            https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cbor-cddl
          --------------------------------------------------
          
          slide7:
          
          Jeffrey Yasskin: Q - There is not standard definition for path expression
          grammars.
          Carsten: We need to find a good reference for this.
          Jeffrey: We also need to define the mapping between parse expression
          syntax and CDDL syntax.
          
          
          Slide8:
          
          Alexey: To use specification required, we need clear guidelines around
          what is expected.
          Jim Schaad: Does the specification need to be public?
          Barry: Yes. If you don't need that, then expert review can be used.
          Sean Leonard: Not sure we need a control operator registry.
          Chairs: If we are going to have a registry, we need to define what will
          be required. Do we need to establish a registry now.
          Paul Hoffman: It would be bad to delay creating a registry. I prefer
          expert review over specification required.
          Barry: You are suggesting we do not need a specification for including
          an item in the registry?
          Paul: Yes. Expert review provides a good level flexibility to support
          adequate human review.
          Jim: If we do a CDDL 2, we should hold off on the registry until we have
          a better handle on language details.
          Paul: It is fine to create a registry and to decide later how a CDDL 2
          would use the registry or do something else.
          Carsten: There are things that can't be fixed in CDDL that need a CDDL 2
          (e.g., cuts). This is a reason to do a CDDL 2. The point of the registry
          is to communicate to users that they can use CDDL even if their needed
          operator is not available. The registry allows the user to define
          operators on their own schedule, based on their ongoing needs.
          Barry: Expert review requires review by a group of people based on
          defined criteria. Specification required add to "Expert Review" the need
          to reference a specification.
          Chris Lemonios: We need a registry to provide an orderly way to extend
          the language. Not having one will be a mess.
          Alexey: Who would be upset if CDDL provided this registry?
          Sean Leonard: I don't think a registry helps at this point in time. I
          don't think its useful, and it will inhibit innovation.
          Dave Waltermire: A registry provides a way to have agreement on an
          approach.
          Alexey: Expert review provides for some safety through review around
          how a given item is approached.
          Chris Lemonios: Agree. Designated experts will encourage good
          specifications.
          Mike Jones: With specifiation required, the registration template contains
          a reference to the specification.
          Jim Schaad: What if I want to write a control operator that supports a
          closed use?
          Brian Carpenter: The IETF doesn't like a lack of transparency around
          specifications.
          Alexey: I advise against "secret" specifications. Need expert
          review. Recommend specifications.
          
          
          Chairs: Add the registry. Make the requirement specification required.
          
          POLL: Any concerns? no. Strong consensus in the room to move forward
          with adding the registry and making the entries specification required.
          
          
          Slide 9:
          
          There was a discussion on how to handle equality of different
          types. Concerns were raised about being clear. It was proposed to use
          different operators for strings and numbers. (side 10) It was asked if
          there is a need to have numeric variants of these operators.
          
          Jeffrey Yasskin: It might be safe to restrict .ne/.eq to only numeric
          types. We can extend use of these operators to other types in CDDL 2.
          
          
          Slide 11:
          
          Carsten: Symmetry in provided operators is consistent with other historic
          languages. For this reason, CDDL should provide for the same symmetry.
          
          
          Slide 13:
          
          Dave Waltermire: We need to avoid fragmentation in tooling that may be
          caused by different serialization options.
          Henk: Extensions can also create a situation where serialization choices
          get broken.
          Lawrance Lumblade: We should focus on the core specification and use
          case, and let specialized use cases do something different. This keeps
          interoperability to a maximum within the core uses, while allowing for
          special case handling in small communities.
          
          
          Slide 16:
          
          Jim: (Issue 9) My concerns was with promoting an appendix subsection to
          a top-level appendix only. I don't think this will create a reference
          problem.
          
          
          Chairs: Asked for participants to speak up in the meeting or on the list
          if they are unhappy with where CDDL is at this point. No concerns were
          raised in the room.
          
          Chairs: Aiming for shipping the draft to Alexey in late August for AD
          review.
          
          
          * CBOR specification status [30'] : Carsten
            https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis
          --------------------------------------------------
          
          * Flextime [10']
          
          
          * CBOR Tag Definitions
          ----------------------
          
          Dave Waltermire: Maybe use a wiki instead of a document.
          Alexey: Not a bad place to start
          Paul Hoffman: Not sure of the value of this. People often reinvent the
          same extension. The problem is around how new participants can find what
          extensions already exist.
          
          
          Some discussion around what format to use: I/D, RFC, wiki. More discussion
          needed.
          
          
          * Wrap-up [10'] : Chairs
          ------------------------
          
          CDDL revision out by July 30
          CBOR updated by October - August 31 for a next draft
           - Have bi-weekly conference calls starting the week of August 6th.
           - Chairs will setup the WG webex for this purpose.
          
          



Generated from PyHt script /wg/cbor/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -