CBOR WG Meeting - Interim 20-06 (IETF107) Wednesday, April 8, 2020, 17:00 - 18:00 CEST Chairs: Francesca Palombini, Jim Schaad Recordings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZNVw91gZp0&feature=youtu.be * Introduction [5'] : Chairs Agenda bashing and WG status update WG documents: * CBOR specification status : Carsten https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis Issue 177: Do we want more control over the 1+2 allocation space for the DE? 1+2 space is FCFS Cartsen suggests moving the 1+2 space to DE and leave the 1+4 space alone FP: Need to look at the list to see why the discussion was setup that way. CB: Could potentially must do a portion of the range to Expert review leave the rest alone FP: ACTION ITEM: Review the list for history Move the discussion to the list for a short review ID: Also would like part of 1+2 range to be expert review. Issue 176: Really an implementer consideration. MR: Is this on the wire or only internal CB: THis is only internal, but what happens if it gets on the wire is an issue MR: If on the wire - then silently ignore - it would be appropriate to ignore and detecition of leakage would be fast CB: Can be an issue if different implementations treat differently. Could be done separate from this document. FP: Why deal with it here? CB: It would be more shown to people reading the document if here. JS: Suggests that the no tag field might be used for the purpose of saying field not present - previously brought up issue JS: ACTION ITEM: Make sure to respond to this on the mailing list when Carsten sends the mail FP: Summary - good support on the call for this to be added. Need more discussion on how it is used. Bring to mailing list. Issue 178: Security considerations on hashes CB: Should add text to say that other strategies exist to address the issue. Suggests point to JAVA method to solve the problem. FP: Close to done. Queries CB about reaching out to implementers CB: I have, but I can push out the net a bit farther. Starts getting a be on the spam side in some venues. Suggest waiting a bit longer before closing. Submit new version in 10 days - give time to disscuss. FP: Ask for more reviews or ?? CB: Not really a good time to ask for attention due to external factors. By end of month we should make the decision on shipping. FP: Started shepherd review, but should be able to ship baring problems end of month. Other: * Date and time tag document: Mike, Carsten https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-cbor-date-tag-01 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-cbor-time-tag-03 Mike Jones not present so CB takes a stab at this. CB: Need to be able to define just a day rather than a daytime which is time zone relative. CB: Argued againist 1+1 for daytime, but for the epoch version this is a short value. CB: If merge, is there a single tag for both? Sense of list was to do the same thing as tags 0/1 HB: Fine with using distinct tags - but confused by the term epoch based. CB: Don't have to give it a name - CB: Related items include time of day and time zone CB: From email - Mike Jones will have an update draft published this week FP: Last interim agreed to merge the documents. -- some confusion over which pair of documents was being merged, Carstens or ??? (Jerge?) -- Jörg and Mike's proposal will be merged in Mike's document (adding Jörg as author), Carsten's document will still be separate. CB: Looking at the CB draft, which adds more extensions to the current tag 1. Already registered. Can continue working on this but it is pretty ready. Do we want to have a common strategey here HB: Reguarly gets question of how to create a timestamp. Global usable interoperable is not easy. CB: Gotten queries on time scales, not necessarily for percision. CB: Could do a single document on some more useful tags to prevent draft proliferation. FP: Thinks multiple documents might be easier BL: General preference to consolidate but wants to review discussions before offering an opinion. CB: Proposes doing an every 5 year document where new tags can get registered and a stable document exists. CB: Lots of contributers, but not necessarily a large number of authors HB: Agrees that consolidation makes life easier. Having it as a living document is fine as long as the process works. * CDDL freezer [if time allows] : Carsten https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-cbor-cddl-freezer-03 CB: Please read section 4 before the next meeting for discussion at next meeting. * Wrap-up [5'] : Chairs ******************************************************************* Bluesheets ******************************************************************* webex: 12 people jabber: 7 people Francesca Palombini, Ericsson Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works Jim Schaad, August Cellars Alexey Melnikov, Isode Ltd Peter Yee, AKAYLA Michael Breuer, ilSF Ira McDonald, High North Carsten Bormann, TZI Barry Leiba, FutureWei Max Nansen, ilSF Marco Tiloca, RISE Klaus Hartke, Ericsson Tim Cappalli, Microsoft Henk Birkholz