CBOR working group conference call, 2022-01-26

Agenda and notes:

• WG documents status and issues
  • CBOR-packed: unpacking is feature complete, dict setup still has motion.
  • file-magic has PR discussion that should result in updated document for shepherd update.
    • Intended status? CB disagrees with “BCP”. MCR: Started as “can do it any way, here’s a suggestion”; nobody following this needs to do anything particular, “this is what I did and that’s why I did it that way, so you may want too”. Document evolved.
      • CB: Just because numbers are in FCFS space doesn’t change things. Normative intent matters. If you use these tags, that’s what they mean.
      • CB: Main recent decider was “do we expect this to be referenced normatively”; if so, rather go for normative document rather than downref procedure later.
      • MCR: Yes.
      • IMD: Suggest it might get normative refrences.
      • CB: Leaves BCP and standards track. BCP would be weird, can still try and IESG could say else. From systematics, would put it in standards track.
      • BL: Agree.
      • MCR: Won’t argue.
    • On historic motivation
      • CB suggesting some editorial changes there. (Avoiding easily contested general historical statements); could find a correct sentence on history of file opening, but probably easier to drop the sentence.
      • (some collaborative editing?)
    • MCR: CBOR vs CBOX; how explain that best?
      • Talked about ML discussion but none happened; CB: can close, it’s not too consequential.
      • (there are tags that say what it is, CB offering anecdotes to illustrate having same information in same place)
      • MCR: Bit weird but don’t mind “CBOR”
      • IMD: Withdraw CBOX suggestion (still having preferred it but understand rationale)
    • Authors will update
• CBOR use in IETF and other SDOs
• AOB

  • Things you want on the IETF113 agenda

    • MCR: Think it’ll do status update, can just do that w/ other group too, would rather not have slot.
    • CB: Coordinate w/ SEDATE, but not sure when that coordination will be (so not an agenda item). Packed and time work well with interims too.
    • CA: CDDL2? CB: Depends on spectator interest. Hard to predict.
    • IMD (chat): Imagine lots of interest in CDDL2.
    • MCR: In 1k person in-person we’ll have that, but we’ll be at least partially be remote. CDDL2 would be good but w/ wider audience, rather have tech talk than meeting.
    • CB: Can also announce an interim more widely.
    • CA: How are tech talks scheduled?
    • CB: Stopped taking place already before pandemic. BL: Deep dive or regular talk at plenary? CB: Plenary. BL: That was always picked by IAB. MCR: Had them when there was a suitable topic. CB: So talking to IAB would be the answer. For deep dive, IESG, but that’s separate session.
    • CB:
    • CA: Kind of shared presentation of CDDL, YANG and SDF showing state of the art?
    • BL: CB, approach IAB. CB: Won’t happen at 113, so would be next IAB. BL: Or individuals.
    • CB: Heads-up, preparing for later.
    • Summary: Withdrawing request, not meet in Vienna.
    • → BL altering request, CA following up with details.

  • -02-09 there will be a conflict with a YANG side meeting (see OPSA list); just FYI

[CB]: Carsten Bormann
[BL]: Barry Leiba
[FP]: Francesca Palombini
[IMD]: Ira McDonald
[MCR]: Michael Richardson
[CA]: Christian Amsüss
[MT]: Marco Tiloca
[PP]: Philip Prindeville
[ST]: Sean Turner