Minutes interim-2019-cbor-05: Wed 18:00
minutes-interim-2019-cbor-05-201902271800-00
| Meeting Minutes | Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions (cbor) WG | |
|---|---|---|
| Title | Minutes interim-2019-cbor-05: Wed 18:00 | |
| State | Active | |
| Other versions | plain text | |
| Last updated | 2019-02-27 |
minutes-interim-2019-cbor-05-201902271800-00
CBOR WG Conference Call
Wednesday, Feb 27 2019, 18:00 - 19:00 UTC
Chairs: Barry Leiba, Francesca Palombini
Minute takers: Francesca
Participants:
* Francesca Palombini
* Carsten Bormann
* Jim Schaad
* Laurence Lundblade
* Paul Hoffman
* Michael Richardson
* Jeff Sipek
* Jeffrey Yasskin
Agenda:
* CDDL Status
* CBOR Bis status
* Tags documents
- CDDL Status:
Still in IESG review, Ekr DISCUSS
FP: AP on Barry to remind Ekr this week
- CBOR Bis:
https://github.com/cbor-wg/CBORbis/issues
PR17: will close 37, 45, 3 (do a check first, PR18 will contribute to close
3) Paul: Issues in reasonably good shape, PRs still big work to be done
Jeffrey has not had time to check the PR but will do. message from Jim from
Jan 16 which is still to do Laurence: should I look at PR17 in detail in
relation to 37 or 45 before it's merged? Paul: do it after? It is easier to
check with the rest of the changes
Issue #25:
feels that can be closed, there is not much we can do about it.
Jeffrey: agree
Paul: send a message to the list
AP Jeffrey to check both PR17 and PR18, send to authors to be merged and
everybody to check afterward.
https://github.com/cbor-wg/CBORbis/commits/master
canonicalization in one section
Tag validity (PR18)
Carsten: always a problem with that, figured it out why: see new issue in
the array-tags document: https://github.com/cbor-wg/array-tags/issues/1 How
do we handle that in tag validity? worth looking at this issue in more
detail (Carsten, Jeffrey) Paul: not assuming we're going to make progress
on this as it is complicated Jeffrey: agree we should figure it out, but
would not want to block progress Carsten: rather keep the flexibility in a
way that it does not become a problem later
IANA Considerations for CBOR Bis
2 new registry by CBOR: simple values and tags
Tags has been used
Tried to have low thresholds
IANA Considerations: only the low points are DE, but IANA still contacted DE
Propose to mend the 1+1 and 1+2 registration policy
1+1: specification required (minor change, more detail about Expert review)
1+2: FCFS to ER
MCR: what is the problem with now?
Carsten: Problem is that someone could come and take 50 numbers and the
expert could not stop it Paul: yes, expert review. Expert says no, they
appeal, and goes to IETF. (for 1+1) MCR: agree, don't need to have more
info. Francesca (hat off): likes having more text about what experts will
decide on. Paul: don't agree with changing 2+1 to Expert Required. We can
reconsider if get >50% of tags occupied. AP Carsten: propose to have PRs
for next meeting about text on Expert guidelines/guidelines for tags
requesters. Carsten: text about circuit breaker? Paul: no, that is the IESG
job
new document: port json-seq to CBOR
MCR: seems interesting
Laurence: suggest a very week link to it from CBOR Bis.
AP Carsten to propose text in CBOR Bis
Carsten: Discussion on rechartering?
Next meeting + Prague. Also discussion in the ML.