►
From YouTube: IETF-CBOR-20220112-1500
Description
CBOR meeting session at IETF
2022/01/12 1500
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting//proceedings/
A
B
B
B
B
C
C
Go
ahead,
so
I
think
this
is
about
the
seabor
tags,
I'm
so
confused.
My
two
documents,
the
network
one's
already
done
the
file
magic.
So
I
think
it's.
I
think
that
we're
all
done,
I'm
just
a
little
bit
confused
as
to
whether
someone's
waiting
for
carson
and
I
or
we're
waiting
for
something
else.
Just
don't
know
waiting
for
write
up.
It
says
so.
Does
that
mean
it's
outside
of
my
of
our
problem?
It's
your
problem,
barry.
A
C
A
C
So
this
was
the
looking
at
the
diff.
This
was
the
header
tag,
the
new,
the
additional
one
55
801
that
was
added,
and
so,
if
you
have
a
sentence,
then
I'll
go
look
at
the
minutes
and
and
figure
out
what
that
was.
Then
I
think
that
I
think
that
you're
right
that
it's
on
us
to
to
do
this
so
I'll
go.
Look
at
that
carson,
maybe
has
a
better
memory,
since
he
did
the
last
edit
pass.
A
D
A
A
D
B
B
D
D
D
Why
is
it
doing
that
to
me
anyway?
If
you
look
into
appendix
a
of
of
the
the
document
that
I
sent
around
there,
you
can
see
one
way
of
doing
this
using
the
feature
feature
that
we
we
have
standardized
in
rfc
9165
and,
of
course,
that
does
require
some
tool
support.
So
I'm
currently
writing
the
tool
support
into
the
the
second
system,
cdl
tool
and
yeah.
If
you
look
there,
there
are
some
some.
D
D
D
C
C
Yes,
yeah
and,
and
we
don't
want
to
mix
and
match
them,
we
don't
want
to
have
you
know
a
string
here
and
then
a
in
c
bar.
We
don't
want
to
have
a
string
and
then
an
integer
key,
and
then
you
know
whatever
back
and
forth
and
that's
why
there's
this
at
the
bottom.
Those
highlighted
lines
essentially
says
you
do
a
or
you
do
b
and
that's
what
your
your
business
is.
D
D
D
Of
course,
this
simple
example
doesn't
actually
cause
all
the
problems,
so,
for
instance,
in
json
we
have
the
problem
that
the
number
range
is
limited
if
we
are
using,
I
json,
and
that
sometimes
leads
to
interesting
gymnastics
and
yeah.
All
that
is
probably
requires
some
additional
functionality,
but
we
might
also
have
to
put
in
a
few
more
control
operators,
so
we
can
turn
a
number
into
a
string
and
things
like
that,
but
these
are
already
find
extension
points,
so
we
can
go
there.
D
D
E
Okay,
so
I
have
been
working
on
a
draft
in
in
the
suit
working
group
where
I
have
realized.
I
have
a
need
for
a
generic
set
of
sibor
parse
errors
and
perhaps
a
more
specific
set
over
top
of
that
for
content,
validation,
errors
that
sort
of
things
where
you
might
compare
against
a
a
schema
and
find
mismatches
or
missing
things.
E
As
a
result
of
that,
I'm
wondering
if
there's
a
need
for
that
in
general
or
if
that's
something,
that's
very
specific
to
the
use
cases
I'm
looking
at.
So
I'm
wondering
if
there's
a
a
desire
to
to
have
that
kind
of
work
in
the
seaboard
working
group,
and
if
so,
if
anyone
would
like
to
work
with
me
on
that.
E
C
C
C
D
E
Absolutely
but
beyond
that,
there's
also
another
access
to
this
problem,
which
is
that
the
type
of
parser
you're
using
is
going
to
dictate
a
certain
amount
of
this.
So,
for
example,
if
you're
using
a
pull
parser,
you
won't
know
about
well-formedness
until
you're
done
and
by
that
point
it's
too
late.
F
On
that
last
brendan,
which
I
think
is
and
thank
you
michael
for
chipping
in,
I
think
it
is
needed
when
you
said
whole
set
of
errors
for
cozy.
I
was
thinking
of
several
applications
from
global
platform
and
elsewhere
that
are
now
using
cosy
and
have
yet
another
level
of
errors
that
are
somewhere
in
validity.
I
guess
or
not
implemented,
and
whether
just
suggesting
that
it
would
be
nice
to
be
able
to
conceptualize
and
label
sets
of
errors
or
have
a
naming
convention
or
something.
E
D
It's
interesting
to
see
how
http
has
handled
this,
so
they
have
these
error
classes
like
like
four
or
five
and
then
within
these
error
classes,
they
have
some
defined
error
codes
that
are
describing
specific
issues
that
that
the
the
protocol
processor
runs
into,
but
they
also
describe
issues
that
are
close
to
application
issues.
For
instance,
the
the
was
a
409
conflict
in
http
that
that's
that's
pretty
interesting,
because
it
means
something
about
your
application.
Your
application
didn't
like
the
the
data.
D
So
maybe
we
need
a
little
bit
like
the
structure
for
these
errors,
as
well,
as
I
said,
distinguishing
well-formedness
validity
and
acceptability
to
an
application
and
so
on
so,
but
the
the
one
point
I
I
really
wanted
to
make.
Is
we
generally
standardize
error
numbers
when
we
accept
when
we
expect
the
state
machines
to
react
differently
to
different
errors?
D
E
So
I
think
that
suit
may
be
an
interesting
case
because
of
this,
the
the
the
problem
that
suit
faces
is
that
it's
not
a
conventional
two-party
communication
pattern.
You,
you
have
a
minimum
of
three
parties
involved
where
one
of
them
is
a
relay,
but
also
responsible
for
running
that
state
machine.
So
the
relay
ending
up
being
part
of
the
the
pattern
does
actually
produce
some
different
results.
E
So,
for
example,
if
you
have
a
sebor,
that's
not
well
formed,
it
needs
to
know
that
the
seabore
isn't
well
formed,
because
this
may
have
been
a
assigned
document.
And
if
you
have
a
seaboard,
that's
not
well
formed
inside
a
signed
document.
That
tells
you
a
lot
about
whoever
wrote
that
document
and
that
you
need
to
find
out
what's
happened
there
and
it
could
potentially
produce
a
an
automated
response
in
in
fully
automated
systems.
E
C
It's
also
a
case
for
I
think
it's
up
for
being
able
to
get
and
decode
the
sever
that
is
well
formed,
even
though
it
ends
short
or
other
things,
so
that
you
can
actually
tell
like
you
may
need
to
to
look
at
it
to
find
out
who
screwed
it
up
and
if
the
tools
don't
let
us
get,
the
libraries
refused
to
do
that
because
they
they
take
more
of
a
nanny
approach
to
things.
Then
I
think
that's
a
problem
for
that.
C
B
C
But
the
more
important
was
was
essentially
a
beauty
contest
as
to
whether
or
not
the
seymour
tagging
of
things
that
are
not
sebor
should
say,
seabor
or
something
else
and
carson
had
expressed
a
view
that
the
seaboard
indicated
that
the
encoding
of
the
tag
was
seabor,
even
if
the
stuff
afterwards
was
not,
and
I
at
least
felt
that
felt
seemed
wrong,
and
I
think
that
ira
also
felt
that
was
wrong.
So
I'm
wondering
if
there's
some
other
opinions
in
the
here
or
whether
the
question
was
well
formed.
A
C
Since
the
purpose
of
the
this
byte
string
is
in
some
sense
because
we
have
to
put
something
there,
we
might
as
well
put
something
there
that
clues
a
human
to
that
who
might
be
looking
at
it
to
what's
there.
The
human
is
likely
to
key
off
of
the
string
and
not
have
you
know
unless
they
have
a
good
hex
dump
and
a
good
memory.
They
may
not
recognize
the
rest,
but
either
way
would
clue
into
them
that
you
should
probably
apply
a
sea
bar
decoder
to
the
first
12
bytes.