Session Date/Time: 21 Jan 2026 15:00

CBOR

Summary

This interim meeting focused on gathering further consensus for proposed text related to CBOR serialization, particularly a new "Recommendations" section. The Chair emphasized the need for all substantive discussions to occur on the mailing list to build broad consensus. While a sense of consensus was noted regarding big number equivalence, significant discussion revolved around the clarity of terms like "support" and "use" in the context of libraries and protocols, and the appropriate application of RFC 2119 keywords for different participant types. The Chair issued a strong call for increased mailing list participation to advance the document towards Working Group Last Call.

Key Discussion Points

Mailing List vs. GitHub: The Chair reinforced the working group's policy that substantive discussions requiring consensus (beyond typos or grammar) must take place on the mailing list. This ensures transparency and allows all participants to contribute to the consensus-building process, which is crucial for Working Group Last Call and IETF Last Call.
Draft Publication Strategy: A sense of those present indicated a preference for the document editor to publish new drafts more frequently, even if some sections have not yet achieved full consensus. Such sections should be clearly marked in the draft as still under discussion or needing further input.
Current Draft Status: The document currently has 16 open issues, with some new pull requests related to tags 2 and 3.
Big Number Equivalence: A sense of the working group indicates consensus that the existing big number equivalence with integers stands, but this concept will not be extended to any other tags. This was noted as an accomplishment for the working group.
Proposed Recommendations Section: Lawrence presented a proposal for a new section in the draft (tentatively Section 2) that would provide recommendations for various participants in the CBOR ecosystem:
- CBOR Libraries: Should support ordinary serialization and may support deterministic serialization.
- Future Protocol Designs: Should include text recommending the use of ordinary serialization.
- Protocol Implementations/Deployments: Should implement ordinary serialization. The rationale for "should" over "must" was to provide clear direction without mandating unnecessary work for specific use cases.
Clarity of Terminology: Discussion highlighted the need for precise definitions of terms such as "support" and "use," specifically breaking them down into distinct actions like encoding (emitting), decoding (receiving), and validating CBOR data.
Interoperability and RFC 2119 Keywords: Participants debated how to apply RFC 2119 keywords (e.g., "SHOULD," "MUST") in the recommendations. It was suggested that the document should distinguish between general advice that is "good for you" and normative statements essential for interoperability. The distinction between "toolbox" protocols (like COSE or CWT, which offer flexibility) and "end-to-end interoperable" protocols (like FIDO, which require strict conformance) was also raised as a relevant factor when crafting recommendations.
Call for Participation: The Chair issued a strong call for all working group participants to actively engage on the mailing list, particularly on the proposed recommendations section. It was emphasized that consistent and focused discussion is necessary to achieve consensus, and a lack of engagement could lead to the document's (and potentially the working group's) stagnation.

Decisions and Action Items

Decision: The working group has reached a sense of consensus that big number equivalence with integers will be maintained, but this principle will not be extended to other tags.
Action Item (Lawrence): The document editor is requested to prepare and publish a new draft by Monday, January 27, 2026. This draft should incorporate the feedback received during this meeting and clearly mark any sections where consensus is still evolving or further discussion is needed.
Action Item (All WG Participants): Actively participate in discussions on the CBOR mailing list. Feedback, including specific wording suggestions, expressions of agreement, disagreement, or even non-concern (with rationale), is strongly encouraged, especially concerning the proposed recommendations section.

Next Steps

Lawrence will incorporate the feedback into a new draft and publish it.
The working group is expected to continue focused discussions on the CBOR mailing list regarding the proposed recommendations section, particularly the precise wording for libraries, protocol designers, and implementations, and the application of RFC 2119 keywords.