►
From YouTube: CBOR WG Interim Meeting, 2021-02-24
Description
CBOR WG Interim Meeting, 2021-02-24
A
That
being
said,
there
has
been
some
discussion
on
the
topic
of
ordered
maps
on
the
mailing
list.
Recently.
My
understanding
is
that
this
is
something
that
there
is
interest
in
the
working
group
to
have
this,
especially
with
respect
to
seaboard
being
a
more
general
format
that
that
general
purpose
languages
can
use
to
serialize
their
their
data
items
right
now.
The
documents
that
are
around
there
are
more
more
out
of
the
working
group.
Suggestion
texts,
so
is
there
is,
are
there
is
there?
B
C
B
B
B
Yeah,
so
I
I
just
paste
it
in
and
form
it
in
a
way
that
fits
the
rest
of
that
draft,
and
I
think
we
we
can
have
that
well
before
110.
So
we
can
look
at
that
and
then
at
110
decide
how
to
do
this,
so
the
the
for
me.
The
interesting
observation,
is
that
there
are
two
objectives
here:
one
is
the
objective
to
actually
be
able
to
to
tag
a
map
as
order
preserving,
and
the
other
objective
is
to
work
with
platforms
that
have
two
different
map.
B
A
B
B
Okay,
I
think
the
only
really
interesting
or
difficult
question
here
is
how
many
of
these
do
we
want
to
have
and
which
of
these
is
actually
worth
going
for
a
1.1
or
one
plus
one
or
even
a
one,
plus
zero
tag,
yeah
and
that's
of
course,
very
much.
A
judgment
call
so
yeah.
It's
not.
We
don't
have
a
corpus
of
documents.
We
can
just
run
against
that
and
say:
oh,
it's
an
obvious
technical
decision
that
we
don't
want
to
do
this
or
that
we
want
to
do
that.
A
Or,
or
requests
from
anywhere
in
the
constrained
constrained
area,
where
people
where
people
want
to
use
something
that
is
not
a
native
seaboard
type,
because
things
like
serializing,
a
native
python
or
pro
or
whatsoever
language
object,
is
not
something
that
would
typically
go
into
the
constrained
domain
that
we
usually
preserve.
The
small
types
for.
A
A
C
A
Michael,
just
before
mentioned
that
he
would
run
a
bit
late,
so
I
postpone
the
the
file
magic
and
network
network
address
topics
to
when
he's
here,
which
makes
the
next
topic
a
cddl
control.
Is
there
anything
I've
seen
there
is
the
new
document?
I've
got
to
be
honest,
I'm
not
completely
up
to
date.
What
the
what
the,
what
the
updates
there,
where
custom?
Can
you
give
a
one
sentence
summary,
and
is
there
anything
more
that
you
want
to
mention
there.
A
B
B
A
B
Well,
it's
not
a
matter
of
use
cases.
We
have
tons
of
use
cases,
it's
a
matter
of
somebody
sitting
down
and
implementing
it
and
android
wise
has
started.
I
have
started,
but
we
are
not
yet
in
a
stage
where
would
where
we
would
say.
Oh
it's
implemented
and
we
understand
all
the
pitfalls
and
that
I
really
prefer
to
have
things
implemented
before
we
standardize
them.
Okay,.
A
B
And
actually
have
a
tool
that
does
that.
But
it's
not
it's
not
good.
I
cannot
recommend
that
at
the
moment,
so
I
I
mean
we
have
lots
of
abnf
in
in
the
itf
and
I'd
rather
pave
a
way
where
people
can
say.
Yes,
we
can
use
the
existing
ata
abnf
for
the
text,
parts
of
my
protocol
and
cdl
for
the
structural
parts,
and
that
comes
up
all
the.
B
C
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
Kind
of
anticipating,
too
much,
I
think
we
can
start
working
on
this
on
this,
at
least
at
least
in
in
discussion
parts.
So
there
there
have
been
a
few
questions
on
the
mailing
list
on
the
topic
of
what
do
we
need
in
terms
of
why,
where
the?
Why
are
the
particular
numbers
chosen
in
terms
of
for
file
magic?
I
think
that
this
has
been
answered.
D
So
I
think
that
the
only
important
part-
I
hope
you
can
hear
me,
I
think-
for
for
final
magic.
We
just
need
agreement
that
we
want
to
have
a
seahorse
sequence
and
a
wrapped,
and
that
we
said
we
wanted
a
new
tag
for
the
super
secret
place:
five,
five,
seven,
nine
nine.
As
far
as
I
can
tell,
there's
nothing:
five,
five,
seven,
five,
five,
seven
nine
anything
would
work
because
the
last
bite
is
not
if,
as
long
as
it's
in
that
area,
it's
not
a
valid
unicode.
D
B
D
Yeah
800
or
98,
or
whatever
you
want
yeah
any
any
direction,
that's
totally
arbitrary.
What
I
did
look
up
was
that
numbers
in
that
air
range
are
are,
are
three
bite
would
be
three
bite
utf-8
except
the
second
bite
is
not
valid.
It
must
start
with
two,
the
two
ones
anyway,
so
this
range
does
not
have
it
in
that
area,
so
it
would
not
be
a
valid
utf-8.
D
D
D
B
B
D
D
A
D
D
Yeah,
so
there
may
be
a
better
encoding
like,
for
instance,
you
you
could.
You
could
certainly
not
use
jersey
by
doing
deltas
on
the
prefix
length,
but
you,
but
you
may
also
you-
can
also
avoid
repeating
the
you
know,
64
bits
of
the
initial
part
of
the
prefix,
which
you're
changing
all
the
time,
the
rest
of
it.
That
may
just.
B
D
B
Yeah,
so
I
I
went
ahead
and
did
another
version
of
the
time
tab
tag
document
right
now.
We
are
getting
more
and
more
requests
out
of
the
attestation
environment,
red
working
group
and
so
on
for
for
how
to
to
put
time
into
these
data
structures,
and
they
they
need
a
little
bit
more
than
than
tag
one.
So
the
timetable
tag
document
seemed
appropriate,
but
they
also
need
things
out
of
existing
rfcs
like
three
one:
six,
one
and
the
precision
time
protocol
stuff
and
so
on.
B
So
we
added
some
of
that
and
that's
one
aspect.
We
probably
have
to
run
this
document
by
the
tick
tock
working
group
before
or
during
last
call
at
least
about
probably
before-
and
we
have
to
make
sure
it
actually
solves
the
problems
that
that
the
rats
people
are
having,
but
I
think
otherwise
we
are
in
pretty
good
shape
and
I
would
expect
that
there
will
be
documents
that
are
going
forward
that
use
this
relatively
soon.