CBOR WG Conference Call
Wednesday, Oct 17 2018, 15:00 - 16:00 UTC
Chairs: Barry Leiba, Francesca Palombini

Minute takers: Francesca

Participants:
* Barry
* Carsten Bormann
* Michael Richardson
* Paul Hoffman
* Francesca
* Laurence Lundblade

Hackathon 103:
    Barry: are we going to have an interop?
    Carsten: if we have issues where an interop would help
    Barry: Not necessarily, but rather for visibility
    AP Barry: presence at the Hackathon, at the wishi table, come and join us

CDDL status:
    Carsten: IANA questions
		* CDDL control operators are new registry
		* should the entries be alphebatized
	Barry: why not, but it does not really matter
	Carsten: if it makes more logic sense, having them in another order
	2 reviews to fix before IETF103
	Waiting for writeup from Alexey
	AP Barry: ping Alexey
	Telechat in december hopefully
	For Bangkok we can summarize the changes from reviews

CBOR Bis
	Carsten: any substential feedback from Jeffrey we need to discuss in Bangkok
	Paul: one major issue is key equivalence, a number of minor issues. Pull requests waiting to be fixed to be mergeable.
	Carsten: first commit on the issue from Laurence 6 days ago. Most of the work is done but we have to agree that we agree.

	map key equivalence commit
	Carsten going through https://github.com/cbor-wg/CBORbis/commit/d2ba777d54faa649c8e6b30c09e19ac898426be8
		- generic definition
		- preferred encoding for floating point values (all the time not just for when they are keys)
		- data model use in equivalence of keys section
		- new text about preferred serialization: started from Laurence text but editorially different
	Michael: doesn't like this non-binary interoperability. 
	Laurence: looking for clear rule that if you follow you always are going to be interoperable
	Carsten: maybe can be rephrased in "some protocol create the opportunity to have that"
	Michael: this is not under implementation section. "protocol designers may want to use constrained decoders, they need to call that out, whenever they make use of shortcut that does not make use of preferred serialization"
	Laurence: most interested in indefinite length.
	Carsten: make the role of the protocol more clear.
	Laurence, Michael: yes
	Michael: if we don't, people will make bad assumptions
	Carsten: Ok, thanks

	Laurence: PR for dates and for shortest floating point
	Carsten: floating point is the commit above, the other still on the todo list
	Laurence: reference IEEE754
	Carsten: yes we should

	Laurence: precision for floating point
	Carsten points to l. 1270-1278 in commit above
	Carsten: I think putting information in here would be wrong. Important part is that if you choose an encoding that loses precision, that should be something that is explicit, desired buy the application, but the other direction is not very useful
	Laurence: how do you decide if something can make been shorter or not?
	Carsten: line 1271
	Laurence: we should interop test
	Carsten: Hackathon 103

	Michael: suggestion: we should have some text about "cbor based protocol is supposed/expected to use all preferred serialization"
	Carsten: yes we can add that

	Carsten: next steps: wait on Jeffrey's feedback before including his requests. Try to get Laurence's in before drafts cutoff.

	AP chairs: Agenda for Bangkok meeting to be requested in the mailing list

	Array tag: Carsten to check that the draft was updated and then adopt

	Next conference call is cancelled and we meet in Bangkok