# CoRE Virtual interim - 2022-11-23 - 15:00-16:30 UTC Chairs: * Marco Tiloca, RISE * Jaime Jiménez, Ericsson * Carsten Bormann, TZI ## Remote instructions Material: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-core-16/session/core Meetecho: https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/interim/?short=737345ad-76fb-4cb9-8795-651b2cef06e3 Notes: https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2022-core-16-core Jabber: core@jabber.ietf.org Zulip: https://zulip.ietf.org/#narrow/stream/21-core Minute takers: Marco Tiloca Jabber scribes: Marco Tiloca ## Agenda ### Note Well Remember that the [note well][1] applies, for [IPR][2] but also for [WG processes][3] and [code of conduct][4]. Please be nice to each other. ### Jabber & Minutes / Agenda bashing ### CoRE Target Attribute Registry * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bormann-core-target-attr/ MT: Adopted today as WG document. CB: It is in a pretty good shape already. It's about being sure that we collect target attributes already around, and that we have a good registration policy. RH: Can you automate the extraction of target attributes? CB: It might require natural language processing. CB: I haven't formally checked for its consistency with the CoRE charter, but it's pretty clear that it acts as maintenance of RFC 6690, based on a direction now coming from RFC 8288. (no objections heard) CB: Timeline for this draft? MT: Complete on Q1 2023? CB: If possible, we can even try for WGLC this year, at least starting it. MJK: I agree with Carsten, this can go quickly. This document can encode a lot of policies. It has to be correct as to registration and good maintainance of the registry. MT: For information, we'll soon submit a revision of -core-oscore-edhoc, where some target attributes will be renamed to correctly use "-" instead of the underscore character. Then -core-target-attr can be updated accordingly. MT: Also related to attributes from -core-oscore-edhoc, I'd expect some bikeshadding around their names, to have an EDHOC-related prefix and to see if it's possible to shorten them. That would probably happen during WGLC of -core-oscore-edhoc and spans over both documents. MT: Ari also had a comment during the adoption call, on having the definition of target attributes more specific, especially those from -core-oscore-discovery. However, especially those have a general meaning that holds in contexts different than OSCORE groups. CB: We have to find a balance on the level of specificity. MT: Yes, I am ust trying to avoid a sort of "point squatting", where two attributes are registered, and they mean the same thing but just in different contexts. CB: At the same time, we can't really prevent people from misusing (registered) attributes. ### HREF * https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-href/ * https://github.com/core-wg/href/wiki/uri-schemes-that-we-want-numbers-for CB: There is a new PR for one of the open issues now. See https://github.com/core-wg/href/pull/58 . This addresses the issue on rootless no-authority CRIs without path. MT: It looks good at a first glance. You can ask Thomas and Christian for a review. CB: Will do. MT: It was discussed how to address the remaining issues. Do you plan a PR for those? CB: Yes. MT: An exception is the issue about test vectors. Do you plan more interop/comparison at least with Thomas? CB: Yes. MT: We also have the wiki (see link above) where to collect the negative integers to pre-register as abbreviations of URI schemes. MT: The idea was to first extend the minimal set of usual suspects in the CDDL definition of a CRI (including also coap+, coaps+, ...), and then take this minimal set as starting point for the registration in this document. CB: We may want to include also MQTT. MT: Then it's about what we want to further pick up from other existing URI schemes. CB: Another problem is that some URI registrations are not permanent yet. MT: That's one more thing to factor in the definition of a good registration policy. It's not going to be easy. CB: We need to find a balance in terms of flexibility, while still giving clear criteria to the Designated Expert. MT: Timeline for this draft? CB: We might be able to start a WGLC this year. ### Errata resolution for CoRE documents See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/0VM6waLVW1v3B9ghF0EmUBeZZ3E/ MT: I went through them. On 7 of them, I just agree with the proposal from Francesca. I have comments on the other 3 ones. MT: On https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4895 , can't this also be verified instead of hold for doc update? FP: I think it requires more work, has implications for IANA, and feels cleaner in a separate document updating RFC 7252. CB: Yes, and that document can be -corrclar, see https://github.com/core-wg/corrclar MT: On https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4948 , I double-checked and think that the content is correct. Like Francesca said, it's probably not possible to use the notation \[...\] and we may have to re-include a lot of unchanged text too. FP: That's maybe something to check with the RFC Editor. CB: I can do that. MT: On https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4954 , I was leaning towards verifying this one, but like for the first discussed errata, it's better to have it hold for an update, due to the IANA implications. CB: And again the updating document can be -corrclar. MT: Also, probably other documents made the some mistake that this errata is trying to fix in RFC 7252. CB: -corrclar can update those documents too; let's just hope they're not too many. MT: At least they're clearly identifiable from the "CoAP Content-Formats" registry. CB: On https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5429 , I agree that it should be rejected. When updating RFC 7252, -corrclar can clarify on this point too, providing the rationale behind the contested design, also supported by the LWIG document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-coap/ FP: Please provide a pointer in a reply to the thread in the mailing list. CB: Will do. (see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/xNnPJKCQJnFDj64H13d\_AljuB50/ ) MT: A good place for collecting these points is the "CoAP FAQ" in the CoRE WG Wiki, see https://github.com/core-wg/wiki/wiki/CoAP-FAQ . Most of the current entries are potential material for -corrclar. CB: Based on a quick look on the list of erratas, I agree with the proposed resolution. MT: Let's confirm at the next interim meeting in two weeks. ### AOB MT: Next interim meetings in 2 weeks is planned to be about -core-sid and on confirming the resolution of the erratas. * * * [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/ [2]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp79 [3]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp25 [4]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp54 *[MT]: Marco Tiloca *[JJ]: Jaime Jiménez *[FP]: Francesca Palombini *[JPM]: John Preuß Mattsson *[CB]: Carsten Bormann *[CA]: Christian Amsüss *[KH]: Klaus Hartke *[RH]: Rikard Höglund *[TF]: Thomas Fossati *[DN]: David Navarro *[GS]: Göran Selander *[BS]: Bilhanan Silverajan *[AS]: Alan Soloway *[MCR]: Michael Richardson *[AK]: Ari Keränen *[MJK]: Michael Koster *[NW]: Niklas Widell *[ED]: Esko Dijk *[EB]: Henk Birkholz *[ST]: Sean Turner *[ML]: Martine Lenders *[MW]: Matthias Wählisch