Note takers: Tirumaleswar Reddy K

Dave presented updates to TEEP architecture. 
a) Changes made to #132 (Requirements on Personalization Data) are sufficient.
b) Daniel and Russ volunteered to review the TEEP architecture draft. 
c) Issue 2nd WGLC

Dave presented updates to otrp-over-http draft.
a)Close#8 in git
b)WG consensus to use CBOR instead of JSON
c)Close#11
d)#10: Documented updated to refer to BCP195. RFC2818 does not refer to RFC6125. Refer to IoT device TLS considerations RFC 7925.
AI on Tiru to follow-up with Mark.
e)Use of HTTP only debugging and does not need to be discussed in the document.
f)No need to specify HTTP error codes.
g)bcp56bis should be a informative reference or not ?
h)Post a new draft.
i)Issue 2nd WGLC: Ming and Hannes to review the revised draft.

Akira presented TEEP Virtual Hackathon report

Hannes presented TEEP protocol draft
a) Why both token and nonce are required (nonce shows up only in message and token is present in every message) ?
b) Update draft to clarify the use of token and nonce.
c) Signature (COSE_Sign1) is preferred than MAC (needs discussion).
d) Creating a TEEP message section needs more updates to discuss encryption and signing
f) Discussion on TEEP message format in CDDL.
g) Discussed various issues in git