* 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-99 cbor minutes

Session 2017-07-17 1550-1720: Karlin I/II - Audio stream - cbor chatroom

Minutes

minutes-99-cbor-00 minutes



          CBOR WG minutes
          IETF 99 - Prague
          Monday, July 17, 2017, 15:50 - 17:20
          Chairs: Joe Hildebrand, Francesca Palombini Acting chair: Matthew Miller
          Minutes taken by Paul Hoffman, Francesca Palombini
              Text from the slides is not reproduced here; only differences and
              additions
              See https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/session/cbor for slides
          
          CBOR specification status: Carsten
              https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis-00
          
              * About tag registry (sl. 5)
              Michael Richardson: If you want to put a circuit breaker in, you
              need to redefine the second half ot the space to have expert review
              with different criteria. Two experts criteria ranges.
              Carsten: Good point, let's take that offline.
          
              * About implementations (sl. 8)
              ?: IPFS uses CBOR, so we should find out which library it uses
              Carsten: True for other protocols.
              Call to action: Look at the wiki page and send comments on the list
              about implementation features.
          
              * Which implementations (sl. 10)
              Francesca: Let's start with defining the most used/common
              libraries. Please start the discussion to the mailing list.
              Alexey: to clarify, any feature you have to have 2 independent
              implementation, no need to be the same implementations. 4 or 5
              implementations could cover this.
              Paul: do we need to show uses of each tag?
                  Alexey: Go ahead, fill in the table, find the gaps and later
                  decide if they are unused features, if they greatly increase
                  implementation complexity, separate document or not.
              Sean Leonard: what does "implementation" mean? Because you can tag
              anything with anything in CBOR...does it have to validate? reject
              non-conforming data?
              Carsten: hopefully we don't have to define conformity.
          
              Francesca: Start with what Alexey has said, then go to the list
              about the tag issue. Timeline?
              Carsten: end of september we should be done.
          
              Call to action: Please do comment on things that are unclear, even
              editorial, use the github or mailing list
          
              Carsten: from offline discussion: CBOR document doesn't say what
              kind of Unicode you find in UTF-8 strings
                  Clear that it has to be valid UTF-8
                  People might have different views of what other restrictions
                  there should be
          
              Francesca: any other comment, take it to the list.
          
          CDDL: Carsten
              https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl-11
          
              * Status (sl. 13)
              Alexey: Put this on Standards Track
          
              * Name change (sl. 14)
              Francesca (chair hat off): If we do keep the name, liked keeping
              the name with "CBOR"
          
              * Comments
              Jeffery Yasskin: Wants to be able "parse these bytes with CDDL",
              that's not precisely defined in current spec. Would be nice to have
              that.
                  Carsten: mabye need to add a syntax tree. Also think useful but
                  maybe a different project. Let's fix the acceptance part
          
              Carsten: When do we want to be done? Hope this to be the last
              round. WG last call before Singapore.
          
              Francesca: Any strong objections to moving this to standards track?
              Sean Leondard: has concerns about standards track because the document
              is changing too much
              Joe Hildebrand (chair hat on): wants to nail the name nailed down
              before we go too far
              Francesca: let's discuss the name offline, let's take the discussion
              on the mailing list.
              Henk: I understand one of the preconditions for the standard track
              is the name. I see it obvious evolution rather than "innovation"
              in the document. Please raise in the list very soon.
              Matt: Accepting a doc as wg document doesn't mean it cannot be
              changed.
              Alexey: rate of change isn't that important until it is done.
                  Stable means stable at the end of the discussion.
                  Different discussion if it's changing or if it is standard track.
              Henk: OK, that clarifies.
              Alexey: As long as the core is stable, you can move the rest to
              another document.
          
          Array tags: Carsten
              https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jroatch-cbor-tags-05
          
              * Which tag length? (sl. 26)
              Joe: way too many tags. one tag with an array [type, actual array]
              should work just fine.
                  Carsten: Somewhat of a style question
              Sean: When I reviewed this when originally proposed last year,
              I was okay with the quantity of tags, but opposed to them being in
              the 2-byte space ( < 256). In the four-byte space, no big deal.
                  Carsten: some arrays will be pretty short
                  Joe: sets bad precedent
                  Sean: my concern with Joe's proposal is that now we need another
                  sub-registry for the type "tag" (not truly a tag, it's an
                  enumeration). So I agree with Carsten
                  Joe: let's discuss it offline
          
              How many people have read? ~7
              Call for action: reviews. Paul, Jim volunteered for review.
              Call for action: discussion on which tag length.
          
          Time tags: Carsten
              https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-cbor-time-tag-01
          
          CBOR Tag for CBOR Templates: Carsten
              https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-lpwan-cbor-template-00
              Joe: had a one-tag solution
          
          Packed Tag: Carsten
              https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-cbor-packed-00
          
          Sean: reminds the WG that there is the OID document and other drafts
          that need more review
          
          



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