CBOR WG Meeting
IETF 103 - Bangkok
Wednesday, November 7, 2018, 09:00 - 11:00
Chairs: Barry Leiba, Francesca Palombini

Minute takers: Paul Hoffman, Francesca Palombini

* Chairs intro - https://youtu.be/w34uqmtpCmQ?t=116
  Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-cbor-chairs-00.pdf

    - Decided to continue bi-weekly calls, will have a poll to determine the time

* CDDL (Carsten) - https://youtu.be/w34uqmtpCmQ?t=480
  Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-cbor-consolidated-slides-01.pdf (sl. 1-8)

    - reply to IANA (new CDDL page, order of registry "as it came in unless specified otherwise")
    - ask Kevin Braun for what is not clear in CDDL 2.2.3.
    - include Alexey's comments (sent off list) including mark all normative appendices normative
    - include SECDIR review
    - include GENART review. AP Carsten: post to the list that all descending sequence (e.g. 10..0) means empty
    - couple of more editorials
    - Plan to submit v-06 13/11 with all of the above

* CDDL post 1.0 - https://youtu.be/w34uqmtpCmQ?t=1546
  Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-cbor-consolidated-slides-01.pdf (sl. 9)

    - SUIT would like an import function: possibly report to the list
    - AP Paul: outreach to authors of specs using CDDL, CBOR, or JSON asking what they might want

* CBORbis - https://youtu.be/w34uqmtpCmQ?t=1852
  Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-cbor-consolidated-slides-01.pdf (sl. 10-18)

    some issues to decide on:
    - #35: keep infinity included
    - 0.00 -0.00 : no opinion from the wg (so do as implementers say and do not have both)
    - #37: not strong opinion
    - IANA: spec required but additional guidelines to expert
    - IANA: 1+2 range: add spec required

    - issues: https://github.com/cbor-wg/CBORbis/issues
        - 36: change to self-described
        - 38: fix the text that is too hard
        - 29: requires some analysis, maybe 2 solutions (1 for base64 and one for base64url) - Paul thinks we don't need to specify this: "you might do this" we don't need interoperability for tags - Chris Lemmons (+1 from Alexey) good with interoperable tags, AP Carsten: post to the mailing list
        - 25: Carsten thinks changing terminology is not a good idea now. Laurence would like to change map key for label. Carsten: map key are not only labels.
        - Laurence on canonicalization: would like some motivation about why it exists, why and when you might want to use it. AP Laurence: write proposal (wg seemed to think that is a bad idea, more confusing)
        - AP Carsten: check #21 and see if it was done
        - 16: examples in the spec: add a pointer to cose github
        - 3: check with Jeffrey to see if he is satisfied
        - pull requests: AP authors: check that what was included is ok with Jeffrey


* Tags - https://youtu.be/w34uqmtpCmQ?t=5400
  Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-cbor-consolidated-slides-01.pdf (sl. 19-25)

    - 1+1 for byte tags: post to the mailing list
    - plan: after the above, submit v-01
    - Get more people to read Array tag doc and then go to WG Last Call soon