►
From YouTube: COSE WG Interim Meeting, 2020-09-23
Description
COSE WG Interim Meeting, 2020-09-23
A
As
and
I,
as
the
working
group
meeting,
it
is
subject
to
the
note
well
as
we
have
been
in
the
past,
so
just
please
make
note
of
rules
when
it
comes
to
contributions.
If
you're
going
to
speak
here
today
at
all
administrative,
so
we
just
went
through
the
note.
Well
is
anyone
willing
to
help
take
any
minutes
today.
A
Thank
you,
john
and
well.
The
chairs
will
help,
obviously,
obviously
for
the
attendees.
We
have
a
section
in
the
minutes
which
there's
two
links
in
the
webex
chat,
pointing
to
where
they
are.
If
you
would,
please
put
your
include
your
name
there,
this
is
what
we'll
turn
into
the
blue
sheets
for
the
meeting
and
then
so.
Our
agenda
today
is
to
go
over
outstanding
feedback
for
documents.
A
A
A
All
right
taking
silence
is
no
objections
to
it
for
document
feedback,
so
I'm
not
sure
how
many
people
have
had
a
chance
now
to
read
the
counter
signatures
document
that
jim
had
posted
a
couple
weeks
ago,
but
I
did
see
at
least
jim
posted
one
note
with
regards
to
the
some
potential
conflict
with
message:
recovery
signatures.
A
Okay,
wanna
talk
about
the
the
message:
recovery
conflicts
or
do
we
jim
summarize
pretty
well.
B
It's
really
just
kind
of
maybe
it's,
maybe
it
will
be
an
issue
someplace
else.
There's
nothing.
There's
no
problem
here.
B
A
This
document
does
need
review.
Is
anybody
in
addition
to
michael
richardson,
who
I
see
mention
that
he's
intending
to
read
it
anybody
else?
Well,
he
didn't
provide
feedback
within
the
next
some
period
of.
A
F
So
this
is
hank
the
awkward
silence
here.
I
I
really
would
like
to
do
so
and
why
I
really
think
this
should
happen.
I
really
also
think
that
I
am
not
capable.
That
is
the
reason
why
I'm
speaking
up
so
a
review
on
a
tutorial
level,
of
course
sure.
But
but
if
it's
a
specific
issue,
sorry
I
I
do
not
see
myself
fit
to
add
something
to
the
discussion
that
has
not
already
been
added.
That
is
my
problem,
personal
problem.
A
All
right
well,
thank
you
for
that
hank,
that's
worth
keeping
mine.
I
know
this
chair
does
tend
to
read.
It
just
hasn't
had
the
opportunity
just
yet
myself,
either
I'm
going
to
commit
to
getting
that
done
within
the
next
week
and
then
be
able
to
provide
some
feedback.
A
I
see
francesca's
also
committing
to
some
period
of
time,
so
we'll
we'll
get
those
reviews
going
with
that.
I
think
that's
a
decent
segue
into
the
message
recovery.
That's
our
major
outstanding
issue
for
rc
8152,
best
struct.
A
Well,
well,
ben
since
you're
here
would
you
mind
giving
us
the
tldr
of
your
update.
E
Yeah,
I
think,
basically
it's
just
fine.
There
was
one
proposal
that
jim
had
made.
That
was
not
in
the
full
length
text
and
I
I
would
accept
that
proposal
and
then
I
just
had
a
question
still
about
the,
I
think
was
the
application
external
data,
which
was
a
phrase
that
I
didn't
quite
understand.
What
was
supposed
to
mean.
E
A
Okay,
has
anybody
else
had
a
chance
to
read
through
that?
Have
any
comments.
E
E
E
A
Well,
my
question
is:
if
anybody
else
has
comments
and
then
that's
going
to
lead
to
another
proposal,
but
let's
start
with,
if
anybody
else
has.
A
Comments:
okay,
I'll,
take
the
sentences,
no
objections,
so
I
think
the
chairs
are
proposed
that
jim
make
the
updates
to
the
document
directly
and
then
because,
right
now
everything
everything
I'm
reading
is
eventually.
This
comment
sounds
to
me
more
editorial,
making
sure
we're
aligned
on.
A
A
Right
any
does
that
sound
about
right
then.
A
All
right-
and
that
should
be
the
last
major
outstanding
issue.
With
with
the
struct
documents,
we
should
be
able
to
progress
back
to
a
itf
to
a
last
call:
do
you
want
to
go
through
another
working
group
last
call,
or
we
do,
we
think,
do
we
want
to
go
through
another
working
group
class.
Call
that's
my
question.
E
That
is
plausible,
but
I
think
that
the
sort
of
stance
in
the
isg
at
the
moment
has
been
shaped
by
some
recent
remarks
and
drama
in
a
different
working
group
relating
to
not
doing
another.
Last
call
for
a
document
that
spent
a
couple
years
in
isg
evaluation
and
had
some
arguably
substantial
changes
made
and
had
some
new
hana
registrations
and
the
expert
that
approved
the
registration
then
showed
up
as
an
author
on
the
document
and
so
there's
maybe
some
optics
considerations
in
terms
of
following
the
process.
A
Yeah,
do
is
the
isg's
current
position
that
we
should
go
through.
Another
work
is
your
interpretation
of
that
position
that
we
should
go
through
another
working
group
class
call,
or
can
we
go
to
another
ietf
last
call.
E
E
A
Needed,
okay,
my
inclination
is
to
go
with
an
is
to
not
do
another
working
group
last
call,
so
I
think
that
would
mean
given
given
everything
said
and
the
feelings
with
the
isg.
It
sounds
like
it
would
be
appropriate
to
schedule.
Another
ietf
last
call
and
then
proceed
back
to
evaluation.
E
Think
so
so
I
guess
we
can
sync
up
with
the
chairs
and
barry
and
me
to
figure
out
who
is
going
to
push
the
buttons
to
make
that
happen.
A
All
right
and
that's
all
finding
the
updates
from
jen.
Of
course,.
A
Right,
I
think
I've
read
some
of
the
direct
reviews
with
no
complaints
with
with
my
with
editorial
complaints
so
far,.
B
A
All
right:
well,
let's
we'll
keep
an
eye
on
that.
Unless
there's
anything
else,
we
can
move
on
to
our
next
topic.
A
Let
me
try
not
to
over
select
there.
We
go
so
chartering
with
all
these
documents
now
getting
to
a
point
where
we're
getting
them
again
pushed
out.
Hopefully,
for
the
last
time
we
do
need
to
finish
up
discussing
our
charter.
A
What
we've
seen
agreement
on
in
the
working
group
is
that
we
allow
this
summary
here
is
we're
going
to
work
on
certificate
compression
and
with
matson's
draft
as
the
starting
point
and
being
willing
to
accept
additional
algorithms,
again
preferences
things
defined
by
standards
by
recognized
bodies
and
non-preference
for
state
defined.
A
I
think
that
was
some
of
the
summaries
that
I've
read
from
all
the
posts
over
the
last
several
months
included
here
is
a
link
to
the
charter,
that's
that
jim
had
posted
several
months
ago,
because
anybody
had
a
chance
to
read
through
the
that
charter
text.
G
A
This
is
the
thing:
yes,
okay,
any
comments
on
on
that
text
that
you're
wanting
to
share
here
or
can
put
the
list
for
the
next
day
or
so.
G
G
Second
point
is
that
it
currently
only
refers
to
it's
very
strictly
bound
to
rfc
7925
and,
as
I
commented
earlier
on
the
list,
I
think
I
think
this
needs
to
loosen
up
a
little
bit.
I
think
the
the
working
group
might
come
to
the
conclusion
that
we
will
not
not
fulfill
compression
for
all
all
certificates
that
are
valid
according
to
the
proof,
and
maybe
there
are
some
text
encodings
and
so
on.
G
G
And
then
the
the
discussion
in
lake
and
60s
is
that
the
e
ieee
profile
is
very
important
for
certain
iut
environments
inside
itf.
So
I
think
the
shorter
I
don't
know
if
we
should
do
that,
but
I
think
the
shorter
should
open
up.
So
if
the
coaster
working
group
would
like
to
work
on
compression
also
for
that
the
ieee
certificate
profile,
it
should
be
possible.
A
All
right
go
ahead.
H
John,
are
you
going
to
say
more,
let
me.
G
I
So
hi
john
I'm
here
yeah
sorry
for
being
late.
Another
appointment
was
jumping.
I
And
there
was
something
about
why
there's
a
surprise
why
we
should
do
native
certificates?
Why
people
like
that?
So
we
got
input
from.
I
think
it
was
hank.
It
was
lawrence
longblade
and
it
was
others
who
specifically
support
the
particular
format
that
we
were
using
with
I
mean
this,
they
were
arguing.
Do
we
really
need
to
make
the
most
compact
version
or
it
can
be
set
up
for
something
which
looks
more
like
a
deeper
web
token,
but
they
were.
I
F
F
Yes,
thank
you,
okay,
so,
on
the
moving
back
a
little
bit
on
the
topic
about
rfc
7925,
we
should
be
careful
here.
There
has
to
be
a
balance
between
what
you
can
compress
and
what
you
exclude
of
being
able
to
be
processed.
There
are
decisions
here.
F
For
example,
I
think
john
highlighted
the
text
characteristics
the
text
encoding
in
in
existing
certificates.
This
can
be
tricky
and
we
highlighted
that
I
think
early
on,
but
probably
this
is
lost
in
time
and
space.
So
so
not
everything
is
just
a
string,
a
lot
of
string
types
and
it's
awful
and
it's
esoteric
and
it's
x
xy49
of
course.
So
you
cannot
expect
anything
to
be
certain
in
order
to
recreate
canonically
existing
certificates
via
compression
in
the
middle.
A
A
Okay:
okay:
well
any
comments
on
the
on
the
on
the
native
format
or
releasing.
B
I
have
one
thing
we
will
definitely
have
to
change
the
charter.
If
we
do
that-
and
I
was
at,
can
I
ask
ben
if
we
need
to
change
the
charter
to
even
do
the
compression
one
of
the
things
that
I
put
in
the
charter?
Originally,
where
did
I
put
it.
F
B
F
B
Right,
one
of
the
paragraphs
says
key
management
and
binding
of
keys
to
identify
identities
are
out
of
scope
for
this
working
group.
E
A
For
those
proposing
native
certificate
format,
how
critical
is
it
to
have
that?
Is
that
something
we
need
to
be
working
on
now,
or
is
that
something
we
can
start
with
certificate
compression
and
revisit
this
going
forward?.
F
So
this
is
hank.
Sorry,
I'm
not
projecting
properly
to
to
jiren,
but
there's
there's
of
course
a
rather
obvious
baggage
here,
because
you
are
going
to
impose
for
every
constraint
device
that
really
has
to
look
at
a
identity
and
not
only
provide
it.
But
you
have
a
double
stack
feature
now.
You
have
to
parse
the
effective
compression,
of
course,
in
order
to
create
then,
and
that
is
effort,
the
actual
certificate
and
and
and
also
parse
the
certificate.
So
the
dual
stack
always
is
a
little
bit
problematic.
F
People
are
wondering-
and
that
is
not
certain-
not
not
necessarily
starting
with
cas,
but
it
is
pushed
to
cas
today,
but
there's
a
dire
need
for
a
key
reduction,
key
management
reduction,
overhead
encoding,
overhead
and
so
on
and
iot,
because
that
is
cost.
So
I
would
say
this
is
an
open
discussion.
Yes,
but
it
should
not
be
excluded
from
a
topic
that
we
want
to
talk
about.
F
So,
if
you're
talking
about
the
charter
here
as
a
list
of
topics
that
we
talk
about,
maybe
it
should
be
more
explicit
about.
We
explore
this
and
we
really
make
sure
to
listen
and
to
to
ask
in
this
discussion
and
then
it
should
be
like
a
letter.
It
should
be
really
not
the
goal
to
set
something
here,
but
the
goal
to
understand
something
here,
and
that
is
just
thanks.
A
personal
point
of
view.
I
Just
filling
in
on
hank
there
it's
it's
definitely.
This
dual
stack
is
definitely
not
a
very
good
solution
for
constrained
setting
it's
it's
a
migration
path
for
not
so
constrained
devices
which
could
have
which
could
handle
the
drilling
encodings,
but
for
for
the
most
constrained
devices,
I
think
that
we'd
really
want
to
have
the
native
one.
E
I
Right
so
that
wasn't
very
clear,
so
what
I
meant
was
that
you
with
the
compression
format
you
need
to
basically
decompress
before
before
you
verify
this
thing
right
and,
and
if
you
don't
with
a
native
format,
you
could
remain
cbor.
You
can
do
all
the
parsing,
that's
basically
whether
you
need
to
have
only
c
board
or
c4
and
base
in
one.
F
I'm
so
adding
to
this
that
there
will
be
a
there.
Are
mechanisms
in
place
today
that
use
certificates
to
store
information
that
are
not
necessarily
only
identity
based,
you
all
know.
I
think
that
ice
except
for
9
can
be
used.
The
document
format
can
be
used
to
store
arbitrary
data
and
people
do
that.
A
lot
and
people
will
create
their
certificates
as
proofs
as
evidence
as
as
tokens.
Maybe
even
well.
That's
not
the
best.
That's
not
a
very
good
thing.
They
are.
They
are
the
short-lived.
F
They
are
complicated
and
this
is
inherited
somehow-
and
I
think
this
inheritance
should
be
somehow
grown
out
at
some
point,
because
it
is
costly,
and
that
is
the
only
reason
here.
F
So
I
think
people
are
a
little
bit
worried
that
we
retain
legacy
here
for
for
too
long,
as
is
necessary
for
the
domain
of
application,
and-
and
we
do
not
want
to
say
that
this
is
necessary
to
do
the
conversion
to
the
migration,
to
the
all
the
standards
that
facilitated
that's
very,
very
necessary,
and
this
is,
I
think,
compression
first,
but
in
the
end
at
some
point,
people
hope
I
think
that
will
grow.
Something
more
streamlined
from
this
in
the.
A
End
all
right,
thank
you
all.
A
So
what
what
what
I'm
struggling
with
is
what
what
our
action
to
take
from
this
is
hank
or
john
or
goran?
Are
you
one
of
you
or
anybody
else
willing
to
help
propose
texts
that
we
can
discuss
around
them?
I
I
A
A
Okay,
anything
else
with
regards
to
the
charter
that
we
want
to
discuss.
G
A
A
Cause,
I
think,
what's
what's
been
pulling
up.
The
work
on
this
charter
so
far
has
just
been
trying
to
get
through
all
of
the
documents
we
already
had
and
now
that
it
looks
like
we
may
just
be
through
them.
A
Again,
I
mean,
I
think
I
think
it
part
of
this
is
going
to
depend
on
getting
getting
the
proposed
text
from
from
john
and
goran
and
company.
If
you
have
a
potential
timeline
for
that,
that
would
be
great.
Otherwise
we
could
talk
about
another
checkpoint
to
see
where
we're
at,
and
I
would
argue
three
or
four
weeks.
A
F
That
would
be
great,
so
this
is
hank.
Of
course,
it's
also
having
a
proposal
earlier
is
easy,
that's
the
easy
task,
so
we
just
write
text
and
push
the
clicket
button
and
then
but
then
there's
the
itf
meeting
upcoming.
F
So
when
I
hear
this
time
frame-
and
this
is
the
independent
of
the
content-
actually
this
is
just
my
my
feeling.
So
are
you
aiming
for
iatf
to
have
a
to
weigh
this
like
like
as
a
proposal?
So
I
think
that
is
an
interesting
question
from
my
side.
Is
the
itf
meeting
the
virtual
meeting
going
to
be
a
cornerstone
here
that
kickstarts
decision
making
or
or
is
this
not
necessarily
set
as
the
turning
point,
so
to
speak?.
A
Well,
historically,
with
this
working
group,
this
time
around,
the
the
meetings
have
been
a
worthwhile
checkpoint
to
get
work
progressing
to
get
work
done.
So
I
think,
given
that
it
seems
reasonable
that
to
have
a
new
charter
ready
to
have
a
goal
of
having
the
new
charter
ready
to
go
for
additional
review
by
the
time
of
ietf
109
seems
reasonable.
F
Yeah,
this
is
exactly
what
I
heard
and
I
think
that's
okay,
but
I
think
we
have
to
speak
out
loud
as
a
I
don't
know
secondary
milestone.
I
know
I'm
so
so
we
have
to
get
our
stuff
together
and
to
be
presentable
and
discussable
at
the
next
meeting.
I
A
A
We
need
to
make
that
decision
within
the
next
10
days
or
so.
A
So
I
know
we've
gotten
some
feedback
from
gorham
and
from
somebody
else
about
not
having
arguing
not
to
try
to
schedule
a
meeting
during
the
the
next
during
ietf
109,
but
it
would
help
to
get
more
feedback
on
that.
C
So
to
give
feedback
about
that,
are
we
planning
on
having
like
interims,
bi-weekly
or
monthly
or
after
that
or
what's
what's
the
other
plan.
A
A
B
C
My
opinion
is
that
it's
true
that
we're
doing
good
progress
in
the
interims,
which
it
makes
sense
what
you
said
that
the
interims
could
could
be
enough.
But
on
the
other
hand,
I
always
look
at
participants
and
list
like
how
many
people
are
joining
these
meetings,
and
I
believe
that
during
the
atf
week
we
get
more
participants
also
because
there
is
some,
what
custom
calls
tourists
showing
up.
A
Sure
I
just
wanna
one
clear
a
couple
of
clarifications
on
my
part.
What
I
have
observed
is
that
we
get
things
done
with
the
meetings
in
interim
or
for
the
broader
picture
is
kind
of
a
consequence.
On
that
part,
we
we've
this
working
group
has
been
getting
things
done
when
when
we
have
meetings,
so
I
don't
think
that's
that's
an
argument
to
skip
the
face,
the
virtual
meeting
face-to-face
meeting
for
interims
and
to
francesca's
point
looking
at
our
current
attendees
list.
A
I
believe
that
we
get
four
to
five
times
more
attendance
with
the
the
iatf
aligned
meetings
than
we
do
with
our
interns.
F
Exactly
so,
the
scope
of
the
itf
meetings
as
virtual
is
the
time
frame
is
smaller
and
so
conflicts
are
higher,
but
also
meeting
number
is
lower
lower.
So
this
is
a
weird
mix.
Nobody
really
knows
how
this
will
work
out
again,
and
this
is
a
new
experiment.
F
So,
for
example,
I
did
not
put
out
cosy
as
a
conflict,
for
example.
So
that's
why
I'm
that's
why
I'm
highlighting
this?
So
maybe
there
might
be
a
some.
I
don't
know
dual
browser
jewels,
because
that
thing
is
happening
and
so
yeah,
but
in
the
end
I
think
it's
warrants.
Is
this
warranted
to
have
to
try
this
and
I
would
support
a
itf
virtual
meeting
scheduled
session.
C
But
then
again,
if
we
don't
have,
as
jim
said,
if
we
don't
have
a
agenda
work
to
discuss,
then
there
is
really
no
point
in
having
the
meeting.
A
Right
well
as
things
stand,
and
if
we
had
to
set
that
agenda
right
now,
that
agenda
would
be
finalizing
our
charter.
So
I
think
we
do
have
work
and
it's
easy
to
cancel
a
meeting
after
it's
scheduled,
it's
harder
to
schedule
a
meeting
if
it's
not
been
scheduled.
F
Yes,
exactly
that
try
the
effort
and
maybe
face
reality
afterwards.
That
is,
I
think,
a
good
idea.
Also.
Yes,
if
there
is
no
agenda,
I
think
the
charter
is
the
now
that
actually
not
that
we
have
discussed
a
lot
of
important
things
today,
so
contra
signature
and
and
the
likes,
and
so
I
think,
there's
enough
charter
for
a
small
meeting-
that's
not
the
big
time
but
the
typical
time
slot
and
I
would
again
support
this.
F
No,
not
a
problem
at
all.
I
I
actually,
I
am
the
pessimist
here
so
I
like
to
hear
like
things
notions
like
yeah
yeah,
we
don't
know
that
that's
fine,
it
would
be
excellent.
Actually
you
know,
but
people
look
at
things
and
was
highlighted
already
before
the
meeting
might
times
five
higher
attendance
and
then
people
look
again
at
the
current
state,
so
maybe
messages
thrown
on
the
list.
Maybe
messages
to
review
charters
are
only
acknowledged
and
then
actually
received
at
the
at
the
intermediate
person.
F
Awareness
is
erased.
So
that's
just
I
don't
know
daily
based
facts,
but
if
you,
if
you
are
honest,
I
think
meeting
is
a
good
conversion
point.
So
again,
that's
why
I
highlighted
the
question
initially.
I
think
this
is
helpful
and,
yes,
my
you
might
have
a
very
stable
thing
and
it
might
be
ripped
apart
if
more
people
look
at
it.
I
F
A
A
A
At
least
what
I'm
hearing
here
and
from
what
we've
received
through
email
we've
received
through
email,
is
a
preference
to
just
stick
with
interims.
But
what
we're
hearing
here
is,
let's
schedule
the
meeting
and
if
we
don't
need
it,
we
can
cancel
it
later.
But
let's
schedule
it.
A
If
we
do
so,
regardless
of
whether
so
even
with
scheduling
it,
what
do
we
want
to
do
for
interims
between
now,
and
I
attempt
109
in
early
november.
A
Okay,
do
we
want
to
do
that
within
terms
or
do
we
want
to
stick
with
live
communication
until
the
meeting
to
see
how
far
we
get.
A
A
A
Okay,
so
the
players
will
get
we'll
get
something
scheduled,
definitely
for
october,
the
soonest
that
we
can
fit
a
slot
into
even
I'll
talk
about
it
and
see,
see
where
we
can
get
that
done.
We
will
schedule
for
109
and
also
look
into
scheduling
for
through
until
at
least
iatf110
for
interims.
A
Okay,
then
we'll
we'll
stick
with
we'll
assume
this
time.
We
will
send
out
a
note
to
the
list
on
this,
but
we
are
going
to
get
this
schedule
before
we
are
going
to
get
the
schedule
before
the
next
week
starts
at
least
october
schedule
before
next
week.
A
A
I'll
take
this
as
a
no,
so
I
think
that
means
that
we
are
wrapped.
We
have
a
number
of
action
items,
we'll
get
started,
we'll
get
the
things
posted
and
yeah.
One
question.
J
A
Okay,
one
moment.
D
C
A
Editions
any
comments
from
those
here
we've
got
the
here:
we've
got
the
link
posted
in
the
webex
chat.
It's
on
the
mailing
list.
I
think
we've
got
a
few
places
you
can
find
it.
A
Okay,
we
will
still
confirm
this
on
the
list.
Chairs
will
at
least
post
reply
to
john
to
try
to
call
more
attention
to
it
and
then
is
there
any
other
any
other.
A
Thank
you
all
for
attending.
We
will
get
minutes
posted
once
we
have
the
recording
and
we
will
start
start
working
through
the
chat
we'll
the
chairs
will
have
have
a
short
discussion
and
we'll
start
working
through
our
list
of
items.
Actions
from
this
meeting
all
right.
Thank
you
all
and
recording.