►
From YouTube: CBOR WG Interim Meeting, 2020-04-22
Description
CBOR WG Interim Meeting, 2020-04-22
A
A
B
Yeah,
that's
pretty
simple,
because
I
completely
screwed
up
on
this,
not
one
of
the
action
points
actually
done,
except
that
I
did
talk
to
additional
implementer.
So
I
actually
expect
a
little
bit
more
input
at
some
point
from
at
least
one
of
them,
but
it
should
come
in
the
next
few
days.
So
it
should
be
useful.
B
B
It
is
okay
and
thing,
I'm,
always
amazed
at
how
often
this
software
actually
changes,
which
is
a
good
thing
to
a
certain
extent,
but
sometimes
it
isn't
so
we
wanted
to
have
new
version
out
four
days
ago.
That
didn't
happen
and
I
probably
need
four
more
days
to
actually
do
that.
So
we
will
be
very
close
to
the
end
of
month,
milestone
we
had
said,
but
we
might
still
be
making
it.
A
B
A
A
So
yeah
we're
still
still
up
for
this
timeline
of
end
of
the
month
for
the
next
mission.
Okay,
so
we're
waiting
on
that
before
we
ship
it
or
we
see
if
anything
else
comes
up.
Yes,
so
the
number
177
review
the
list
for
history
that
was
on
me,
and
this
was
about
the
tag
policy.
So
how
I
have
done
that,
and
there
has
been
the
discussion.
I
actually
could
not
find
I
kind
of
remember
we
discussed
it.
This
ala
face
to
face
as
well,
but
I
could
not
find
minutes
about
that.
A
A
A
A
D
D
D
A
A
B
I
think
that
there
are
two
parts
to
this
question.
The
one
is
what
is
actually
the
status
we
give
these
documents.
This
is
an
information,
a
document
is
this
Stannis
strike
document
and
we
have
certain
pockets
in
the
IETF
where,
where
we
have
lots
of
documents
that
register
something-
and
these
are
all
informational,
but
then
they
are
being
used
with
normative
intent
in
in
other
documents.
So
essentially
the
iesg
review
for.
B
That's
a
part
where
I
think
we.
We
need
a
little
bit
area
director
input
on
on.
What's
the
procedure
that
the
IES
Jeanie
will
will
like
us
to
follow
and
on
the
number
of
documents
that
we
will
get
this
way.
Of
course,
that
could
be
quite
a
few.
So
I
continue
to
believe
that
maybe
we
should
do
some
consolidated
documents.
There
are
several
tag:
definitions
that
are
actually
quite
useful.
B
That
currently
only
exist
in
in
some
random
websites,
and
we
could
do
that
in
order
to
take
that
input
and
consolidated
into
a
favorite
change
document,
or
something
like
that
in
order
to
have
an
archiver
document
in
one
place.
So
that
would
be
my
proposal.
What
what
we
shall
do
once
we
are
done
with
see
bovis.
D
So
I
understand
that
there's
a
lot
of
various
tags
that
one
could
define
and
that
may
be
defined
in
multiple
places
and
this
working
group
could
choose
to
do
a
consolidated
document
in
this
case.
This
is
motivated
by
a
specific
request
from
I,
so
for
a
fast
track.
Mobile
driver's
license
piece
of
work
and
I
think
we
owe
it
to
ISO
both
to
finish
this
quickly
and
to
make
it
an
RFC.
D
So,
and
you
know
a
lot
of
the
national
bodies-
respect
RFC's,
they
might
be
so
happy
referencing,
something
that's
really
just
in
a
registry
but
waiting
to
an
unfinished
draft.
So
for
this
document,
I'd
like
to
request
that
we
do
work
in
group,
adoption
I'm
fine.
If
the
area
director
wants
it
to
be
informational
to
make
that
change
at
the
time
it's
adopted,
but
I
don't
want
this
to
get
hung
up
or
a
year
in
process
where
we
agglomerate
many
unrelated
things.
C
A
F
Kirsten
many
first
thing:
okay,
I
can
voice
an
opinion.
This
is
Hank.
Sorry,
I
think
it's
rather
straightforward.
I
have
to
agree
with
Mike
yeah,
it's
all
about
the
representation
of
a
date
and
a
days
since
f,
Hawk,
so
I
think
it's
both
a
semantic
representation
yeah.
This
is
changing
and
it
is
just
another
yeah
another
visitation,
both
of
them,
so
I
I
am
totally
fine.
With
this
we
have
another
draft
forthcoming
that
is
focusing
on
on
time
and
so
I
assume
that
these
are
not
conflicting
and
therefore
we
can.
G
A
A
F
A
B
You
see
what
loads
yes,
so
we
have
maintained
more
or
less
this,
this
freezer
document
from
discussions
we
had
about
City
idea
and
there
are
a
number
of
things
India
that
we
probably
need
to
do
sooner
or
later.
So,
for
instance,
one
message
on
the
mailing
list
reminded
us
that
that
we
really
need
to
think
about
fine
inclusion
and
and
export
and
import
interfaces
and
so
on,
which
which
is
also
listed
in
the
freezer
document.
B
There
are
a
couple
of
things
that
actually
could
be
taken
out
of
the
freezer
document
and
processed
as
extensions
for
CTL
and
one
is
this
dot,
a
B
and
F
thing
that
that
has
been
around
for
a
while
and
I
mentioned
there
two
weeks
ago.
So
this
is
essentially
the
whole
proposal
on
one
slide
as
an
example.
B
So
the
idea
would
be
that,
like
we
have
control
operators
for
doing
reg
X,
we
might
as
well
have
control
operators
for
doing
a
B
and
F,
and
since
a
B
and
F
is
my
t
line,
this
is
using
a
slightly
ugly
heck,
which
is
using
the
byte
string
syntax.
Instead
of
the
the
text
string,
syntax
for
the
a
BNF
yeah
just
because
the
byte
string,
syntax
includes
new
lines
and
the
text
string.
Syntax
doesn't
because
it's
inherited
from
JSON.
B
B
B
B
There
is
a
separate
string
with
that
material
and
we're
using
another
control
operator
which
is
currently
called
dot,
catch
that
might
change
to
concatenate
these
two
things
and
then,
finally,
in
the
place
where
this
is
used
further
up
in
in
this
slide,
where
we
have
full
date
and
end
date
time
there,
there
is
the
name
of
a
production
followed
on
a
new
line
with
the
a
B
and
F.
So
this
is
something
that
can
be
used
with
dot
a
B
and
F
to
actually
reference
this
production
that
that's
essentially
my
proposal.
B
There
are
a
few
little
things
that
probably
need
to
be
ironed
out.
One
is
a
B
and
F
is
operating
in
an
abstract
space
of
characters,
but
we
have
to
map
this
abstract
space
to
something
concrete
that
can
be
represented
in
C
ball,
so
I'm
proposing
to
have
two
variants,
one
where
a
B
and
F
is
used
for
describing
utf-8
characters
and
the
other
one
where
a
B&F
is
used
to
describe
bytes
well,
there
would
be
something
like
an
ambien
f4
for
utf-8
and
a
maybe
an
F
for
bytes
and
then
four
for
dot
card.
B
We
might
want
to
use
such
a
different
country
to
construct
called,
join
and
I.
Think
we
have
to
make
a
few
examples
for
that.
So
this
is
not
completely
done
and
in
particular,
I
haven't
actually
implemented
that
yet,
but
I
think
it's
a
proposal
that
should
be
implementable
enough
and
stable
enough
at
this
point
that
we
could
adopt
it
as
a
working
of
document,
and
it
would
go
right
into
the
existing
extension
points
of
RFC
8610.
So
we
don't
wouldn't
need
to.
Actually
we
spin
this
in
anyway
or
updated
it
it
anyway.
F
F
A
This
is
kind
of
related
to
what
the
chairs
had
started
and
Kison
working
on
when
we
did
that
questionnaire
and
we
and
I
went
around
and
asked
people
I,
don't
know
if
you
remember
what
was
that
ITF
105,
maybe
and
now
that
got
kind
of
on
the
back
burner,
but
yeah.
The
question
would
be
how
urgent
this
is
compared
to
the
rest
of
the
items
on
that
list
and.
E
Would
like
to
see
more
documents
rather
than
fewer
documents,
so
that
we
can
deal
with
each
item
each
extension
point
independently
in
terms
of
progression,
so
I
so
I
thought
I.
Don't
think
I'd
like
to
see
a
big
huge
document
with
lots
of
different
things
in
it,
because
that
means
that
everything
progresses
at
the
rate
of
the
slowest
one.
As
we
break
things
up,
each
can
progress
his
own
rate.
A
A
B
B
F
Just
try
to
we
had
a
small
group
here,
so
maybe
I
we
don't
need
the
Cuba
from
the
top
of
my
head.
I
would
assume
that
it
makes
sense,
and
please
tell
me
if
you
don't
think,
that's
what
I'm
pretty
sure
this
is
okay
to
handle
controls
in
a
because
they're,
using
the
Ascension
point
for
CDA
controls
into
a
single
draft
and
then,
for
example,
have
the
JSON
representation
of
CDA
in
a
separate
document.
B
B
I
think
it's
a
large
can
of
worms.
Yes,
we
can
do
the
a
BNF
thing,
because
twenty
years
were
already
spent
on
owning
that
one.
So
we
don't
have
to
invent
another
text-based
grandma
for
the
Whitefield
side.
I
think
we
have
a
lot
of
design
space.
So
I
expect
a
lot
of
discussions
before
that
gets
finished.
Oh
you.
F
You
can
always
start
the
draft
I
think
with
all
the
controls,
see
what
progresses
way
and
then
make
a
cut.
Sorry
for
the
pun,
to
stop
there
and
then
put
the
rest
into
the
next
document
and
finalize
the
things
we
think
are
progressing
well
enough,
so
just
working
on
it,
an
unfree
set,
basically,
is
the
other
thing.
I
would
like
to
do
because
I'm
waiting
the
mean
by
I
think
more
fleshed
out
cuts
concept
really
would
help,
and
there
is
a
feast
for
way
too
long
now.
B
Yeah
one
procedure
of
doing
this
would
be
to
keep
all
control
proposal
collaborator
proposals
in
one
document.
At
this
point
and
then
at
some
point
aside,
these
are
the
ones
that
we
worship
in
2020
and
then
we
keep.
We
split
it
up
and
keep
a
document
for
things
that
we
will
ship
in
2021
and
later
and
so
on.
I
think
that
that
might
work
okay.
C
A
Okay,
thank
you
yes,
Cass
tonight,
I
would
say,
go
ahead
and
submit
a
draft
then
that
people
can
start
commenting
on
and
ultimately
it's
up
to
us
author.
While
the
document
is
still
individual
to
decide.
What
do
you
feel
like?
What
do
you
think
makes
more
most
sense
to
have
in
there,
and
this
is
obviously
in
seaboard
charter,
so
we
can
possibly
reduce
cus
that
when
it
gets
adopted.