►
From YouTube: CBOR WG Interim Meeting, 2020-05-06
Description
CBOR WG Interim Meeting, 2020-05-06
A
And
it's
recording
so
welcome
to
seaboard
into
him.
Please
note
that
this
is
the
90th
meeting,
so
the
ITF
note
well
applies.
The
agenda
is
in
the
etherpad.
I
can
post
it
again
in
the
chat,
so
the
first
item
on
the
agenda
was
the
date
and
time
tag
document.
So
we
had
an
adoption
call
started
two
weeks
ago
and
ends
today
and
following
the
feedback
in
the
meeting
and
in
the.
B
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
C
B
But
when
you
press
share
on
Chrome
takes
about
20
seconds
before
it
gives
us
eviction,
so
there
we
are.
Can
you
see
a
see
my
screen?
Yes,
okay,
so
we
see
that
we
have
three
issues
out
there.
None
of
them
is
actually
earth-shattering
and
there
are
no
three
pull
requests,
one
of
which
I
made
it's
a
goes
you're
excused
if
you
haven't
seen
them
yet,
and
potentially
these
all
have
some
very
small
snippets
of
text.
So
under
176,
where
somebody
asked
for
reserving
a
tag
number
to
indicate,
there
is
no
tag
in
an
implementation.
B
B
So
I,
put
in
a
note
pointing
to
the
future
here
says
again,
is
allocated
six
four
five,
three
five
as
the
convenience
for
implementers,
and
we
will
insert
the
reference
to
a
draft
and
this
draft
needs
to
be
written.
It's
probably
going
to
be
very
short
until
we
start
filling
in
the
security
considerations,
but
my
which
might
be
a
little
bit
longer
than
we
anticipate
at
the
moment.
So
I
don't
want
security
considerations
for
this
education
to
hold
up
the
syllabus
document.
B
A
C
B
Room
with
a
no
up
tag
is,
of
course,
that
yeah
that
you
can
do
the
the
thing
that
led
to
this
wonderful
after
zero
day
that
we
all
have
reading
about
a
couple
of
weeks
ago,
where
you
have
two
different
implementations,
doing
two
different
things
on
an
input
which
might
lead
to
vulnerabilities.
So
we
don't
want
to
do
that.
So
we
probably
should
indicate
that
implementations
that
actually
implement.
This
should
reject
encode
data
items
that
have
this
tag
so.
C
C
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
It
seems
like
we
need
to
make
recommendation
and
we
need
to
make
it.
We
need
to
suggest
to
libraries
that
are
processing
stibor,
that
they
have
to
have
some
kind
of
a
new
flag
where
the
application
says:
I
intend
to
ignore
or
reject
unknown
tags,
and
if
you
don't
specify
that
new
API
call,
then
you
get
70
49
behavior.
So
this
is
a
70
49
bit
behavior
and
the
application
needs
to
opt
into
it.
C
Well,
okay,
I,
take
that
point,
but
but
we're
allocating
a
tag
number
with
an
implied
behavior
of
oh
I.
Think
it's
supposed
to
being
implied
to
behavior
is
supposed
to
be
ignore.
Oh
no,
sorry
as
occurrence
is
an
error,
as
it
says,
in
759
959.
The
intended
behavior
of
seeing
such
a
tag
is
to
cause
an
error
which
is
different
than
what
we
have
up
to
you.
For
so
the
moment
we
write
that
line.
We've
invalidated
all
the
70
49
parsers
because
they
ignore
on
unknown
tags
right.
B
C
I
can
see
it
I
had
to
dial
in
because
the
the
WebEx
is
doing
stunts
errors,
but
I
can't
I
am
shared
on
the
rest
of
the
AV,
so
yeah
959
and
it's
not
uppercase,
maybe
but
I
guess
you
intended
to
be
or
you
intended
to
be
in
that
other
document.
So
so
that's
what
I'm
suggesting
is
that?
Maybe
maybe
in
order
to
accommodate
this,
this
transition
on
tag
behavior
that
we
need
to
say
say
that
the
applications
need
to
opt
into
this
70
49
bits
behavior
and
that
that
is
one
such
behaviors.
C
B
B
A
B
177,
this
was
just
an
observation
that
if
you
allocate
a
tag
with
a
number
that
doesn't
fit
into
a
32
bits-
and
you
won't
have
much
fun
with
implementations
that
limit
themselves
to
32
bits.
So
I
put
in
this
paragraph
into
the
ini
considerations-
and
we
probably
should
test
this
paragraph
with
IANA
and
asking
whether
they
are
happy
to
have
such
a
paragraph
in
there.