CA: good comments from Francesca, Theresa and Tianran. Carsten on it. Need to think again if it has to be Informational or Standards Track (based on properties of proposed extensions to IANA registries). Possibly a point of more general interest to the IETF.
FP: nothing against making it Standards Track. If authors and WG agree on that, I have to start a new Last Call. Suggestion for Carsten/Chairs to get consensus on this before having the possible 2nd Last Call.
CA: So something more for CBOR only at the moment?
FP: Yes, up to you if you need more input.
CA: As shephard, I believe the consensus would have been just as strong if the document was Standards Track. What do other things?
MT: Ok if Standards Track; makes sense and aligned with arguments made for other documents (recently core-senml-data-ct). It helps with visibility, also for other SDOs that are interested but might hesitate if they see “only” Informational.
CA: Michael is on it; it’s progressing. No real news.
FP: Last call ended, no major comments in the review. Will add to the next telechat agenda. I hope Michael will have time for an update before then.
CA: They use CBOR to describe claims, CDDL to describe the CBOR (and JSON?), and COSE to ensure that all crypto components are where they should be. I’ll go through it to have a look, encourage others to do too. Philip, please approach the mailing list if anything CBOR or CDDL related comes up.
CA: Please recommend to Philip possible C/C++ implementations of COSE.
Notes (please volunteer to help take notes): MT
[CB]: Carsten Bormann
[BL]: Barry Leiba
[FP]: Francesca Palombini
[MCR]: Michael Richardson
[CA]: Christian Amsüss
[MT]: Marco Tiloca
[PP]: Philip Prindeville