►
From YouTube: CBOR WG Interim Meeting, 2020-05-20
Description
CBOR WG Interim Meeting, 2020-05-20
A
B
A
B
So
there
have
been
a
couple
of
small
requests
and
there's
also
one
one
outstanding
issue
that
I
didn't
manage
to
convert
into
a
per
request
before
this
meeting
and
there
there
is
one
other
issue,
another
small
issue
that
probably
can
be
closed,
but
where
we
need
to
verify
that
so
in
the
asymptotic
curve,
we
are
getting
very,
very
close
to
the
exes
I.
Think.
C
B
A
Okay,
so
you
were
aiming
to
get
an
updated
version
end
of
this
week.
Yes,
okay,
yeah,
then
I
I,
guess
we'll
have
to
take
a
look
at
the
diff
from
the
previous
version
and
see
how
to
move
forward.
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
I
have
started
like
I
have
done
the
Shepherd
review
just
yeah
now
I
will
need
to
look
at
this.
B
A
A
E
So
just
my
understanding
is
like
the
way
I've
been
phrasing.
It
is,
if
you
put
a
tag
in
and
see
where
you
really
need
to
mean
it.
You
really
are
expecting
everybody
to
pay
attention
to
it.
You
don't
just
put
them
in
because
they're
nice
nice
to
be
there,
you
really,
and
if
you
don't
understand
it
you're,
probably
you
probably
should
be
failing.
E
B
B
Been
bending
about
this
document
for
for
a
couple
years
know
that
that
we
should
have
it
and
the
this
got
adren
now,
because
we
needed
a
repository
for
the
invalid
tag.
Actually,
we
wouldn't
have
needed
it.
It
was
not
specification
required,
it
was
just
first-come,
first-served,
but
of
course
it
makes
much
more
sense
to
actually
have
a
document
yeah
and
also
that
is
now
being
referenced
by
see
Bobby's.
B
One
is:
is
this
a
document?
The
working
group
is
somehow
interested
in
right.
Now,
it's
more
of
this
I
I
I
went
ahead
and
and
looked
at
the
registered
tags
and
and
wrote
a
little
bit
of
commentary
about
them
and
I'm,
not
even
done
I
have
only
done
about
half
the
work
yet
so
it's
more
a
personal
perspective.
B
We
want
to
keep
it
that
way
as
a
personal
perspective,
work
group
time
on
that
I
think
that's
a
question
we
don't
have
to
answer
now
all,
but
that
at
some
point
we
we
want
to
answer
and
if
we
actually
do
want
to
spend
I'm
on
it,
then
the
question
is:
do
we
maybe
want
to
adopt
a
version
of
this
document?
Maybe
not
the
current
one,
because
there
are
so
many
holes
in
it.
B
A
B
B
Yeah
clearly
I
mean
we
will
get
new
tags
all
the
time,
and
that
means
if
they
are
notable
this
means
they.
They
will
lead
to
an
update
of
this
document
and
it
doesn't
have
to
be
ten
years.
I
think
it
was
September
in
2013
I.
Remember
it
correctly,
so
we
don't
need
to
have
a
time
there
doesn't
have
to
be
ten
years
from
now.
But
if
you
ask
for
a
time
limit,
then
I
would
say
this
December
September
2023.
A
A
F
B
B
So
I
thought
we
might
want
to
clarify
that
before
we
actually
put
it
into
this
document,
but
of
course,
new
tanks
are
registered
all
the
time,
so
it
will
get
in
compete
again,
might
get
incomplete
because
we
don't
get
permission.
Some
of
the
authors
to
actually
include
text
about
it,
but
it's
quite
close
to
being
completed.
A
A
B
Would
have
one
point
from
the
trenches
right
now
we
are
finishing
the
SDF.
The
simpler
definition
form
would
in
one
diem
and
the
one
diem
data
model
format,
uses
elements
of
JSON
schema
augs
proposal
for
its
definition,
for
the
data
are
model
parts
of
the
model-
definitions
that
will
be
defined
by
that
language.
B
B
So
if
you
go
into
my
github
repository
github.com,
/t
SDF,
simple
definition
format,
then
you
can
see
a
draft
for
the
language
specification,
so
that
has
two
implications.
First
of
all,
it's
nice
to
see
that
there
is
some
interest
in
CDL
there
second
I
had
to
write
a
CDL
to
JSON
schema.
Org
translator
make
this
palatable
for
everybody,
so
that
is
right
now
just
sufficient
to
do
the
SDF
syntax,
but
it
might
get
better
at
that.
B
B
Observation
is
we're
going
to
to
ask
IETF
whether
they
want
to
be
their
home
for
Standardization
of
that
language,
and
since
that
language
uses
some
elements
of
JSON
schema
org,
we
will
probably
get
a
discussion
whether
JSON,
schema
or
itself
may
might
be
something
that
the
IETF
once
so
standardized
and
yeah.
You
probably
can
guess
that
I
have
a
personal
opinion
on
that,
but
not
really
a
strong
opinion,
but
it's
something
that
will
be
coming
up
so
possible
outcomes
might
be.
B
The
IETF
doesn't
want
to
touch
SDF
because
that
carries
the
JSON
schema
OGG
caution
with
it,
and
we
don't
want
to
have
that
discussion,
or
maybe
we
get
to
a
position
where
we
say:
okay,
SDF
uses
some
elements
from
json
schema
org,
but
actually
defines
them
properly.
So
we
know
what
they
mean
and
and
leave
the
rest
of
JSON
schema
on
for
itself,
or
it
could
mean
that
we
actually
pick
up
JSON
schema
OGG
as
as
work
for
the
IDF.
That
is
done
together
with
our
separate
from
the
SDF
work.
B
There
are
a
couple
of
Jason's
schema
or
like
things
going
on
right
now,
all
for
instance,
there
is
an
a
draft
in
the
independent
of
C
any
pending
submissions,
RFC
editor
queue
that
does
something
similar
but
considerably
simpler,
microsoft,
DTD
l
has
something
that
is
almost
but
not
entirely
unlike
json
schema
and
so
on,
and
so
on.
So
it's
an
interesting
landscape,
and
given
that
we
have
C
D
here,
we
we
are
kind
of
forced
through
part
of
that
landscape
and
need
to
watch
this
closely.