►
From YouTube: CBOR WG interim meeting, 2020-01-15
Description
CBOR WG interim meeting, 2020-01-15
B
B
B
I
have
done,
I
have
processed
Jeffy's
review,
I
still
have
to
process
a
Francesco's
review
and
of
course
we
still
have
a
number
of
issues
outstanding
debt,
where
really
text
in
particular
map
validity
issue.
That
probably,
is
the
most
difficult
one
to
work
on,
but
there's
also
interesting
input
coming
from
implementers.
B
So
if
you
look
at
the
issue
list,
then
you
can
find
a
comment
or
a
couple
of
comments
from
a
guy
called
Montgomery
Edwards,
which
I
think
is
not
his
real
name
just
is
the
handle
is
X
4
for
8,
so
we
know
what
Montgomery
and
Andrew
8
Edwards
mean
4
or
4
for
8.
Anyway,
he
has
put
up
some
some
pretty
good
questions
from
an
implementers
point
of
view.
B
I
think
we
have
to
take
a
position
on
some
of
these
issues
where
we
were
all
pretty
wishy-washy
previously,
so
that's
in
particular
the
156,
which
really
brings
up
the
issue
of
generic
decodes
and
encoders
and
reasonable
defaults
for
them.
So
you
don't
have
to
touch
your
generic
decoder
for
every
new
application
protocol,
which,
which
would
be
really
bad
and
Geoffrey's
review,
also
brought
up
some
some
issues
that
fall
into
this
generic
decoder
bucket.
B
So
I
think
that
part
apart
from
the
map
key
issue
which,
by
the
way
also
essentially
is
shaped
by
generic
disorder
issues.
We
have
a
few
more
generic
decoder,
codec
issues
that
that
we
may
want
to
look
at
and
I
also
think
what
what
Montgomery
Edwards
has
started.
We
need
to
do
with
other
implementers
as
well,
so
we
we
still
need
this
outreach
phase.
A
A
B
A
B
Recharge
but
but
that's
okay,
because
we
will
spend
some
some
time
polishing
this
before
we
go
into
the
next
regular
score.
So
again,
I
think
we
need
to
develop
us
a
position
on
things
that
that
implement
us
really
are
interested
in,
and
then
we
can
start
the
reach
out
and
why
we
are
doing
this.
We
can
do
wonderful
things
like
like
review
the
mine
registration
and
update
the
list
of
changes,
and
things
like
that.
A
A
B
B
B
A
B
A
B
B
C
A
B
B
A
This
case
is
not
not
a
problem
but
yeah
my
email.
My
outlook
is
not
updating
me
anyway,
for
some
reason,
so
I
haven't
seen
the
last
two
hours
of
mail.
So
that's
probably
why
I
and
you
can
see
your
mail
to
Jeffrey,
okay,
but
that's
not
good
to
me.
That's
not
good
to
me.
We
should
see
as
a
continued
on
this
reviews
and
then
published
when
everybody's
happy
published
an
update
and
then
after
that
reached
out
to
the
implementers,
and
how
do
we
do
that?
I
guess
that
we
will
need
your
help
cast
into.
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
A
So
I
think
I
will
send
an
email
to
because
because
I
would
like
this
to
be
something
open
to
anybody
who
wants
to
join
really.
Yes,.
A
B
A
C
A
C
C
B
I
don't
agree
with,
and
I
have
to
be
very,
very
careful
picking
up
that
consensus
properly
and
not
coloured
by
my
own
view
on
this,
so
that
that's
why
I
really
have
to
go
back
to
the
video
from
the
regular
meeting
and
make
sure
I
create
a
text
that
reflects
that
and
I
haven't
been
able
to
do
this
before
today's
meeting,
but
I
certainly
will
be
able
to
in
the
next
couple
of
days.
Okay,.
B
C
C
B
B
C
C
B
Okay,
that's
exactly
my
reservation
with
it,
but
I
people
like
Jeffrey
are
making
a
very
good
point
that
there
are
a
lot
of
applications
that
cannot
really
live
with
a
security
problem
that
this
creates
and,
and
we
have
to
develop
a
position
here
that
is
both
come,
isn't
off
of
the
the
implementation
issue
and
enabling
protocols
to
be
secure
in
the
end
yeah.
That's
the
hard
part.