**Session Date/Time:** 18 Jun 2026 20:00

**Akira Tsukamoto:** We're on. Um, it's it's exactly 10:00 p.m. in my time, but I will wait about few five more minutes.

I think I will start. Okay. Okay, um, this is this is SUIT Intermitting June 18th. Thank you for attending. We had a many updates these especially these two two days. Um, two draft updates during today, and that was significant. Um, so this is Note Well, so, um, it's this is a a reminder for the who is attending the any of the IETF activity. So, professional conduct is required. Um, if you have if you, um, experience any of the, um, anti- harassment against the anti-harassment policy, please, um, report any of us. Um, then the activity at IETF is intellectual property disclosure is mandatory. And, um, the yes, and also the activity here is meant to be professional. So, um, and at the activity, especially the interring online meeting will be recording recorded. And, and the people who is, uh, chair or anybody is here to help you. Okay, next page. Oh, can we see it? Okay, there it is. Okay, so um, repeating some of them. So, make sure, yes, the please note that this session is recorded. Um, and to, uh, improve the audio quality, um, using headset is strongly recommended. And when you when you talk in the queue, please, uh, announce your name and yes, before you ask the question or start speaking. And this is the link to the agenda. Also, the MeetEcho is this tool which which is, uh, online um, conference tool. And the other slide is has uploaded to the second link. And if you need any technical assistant, please report at the third link, um, will be, uh, astonishingly um, resolved um, quickly. Okay, now it's administrative task. These are the link of the MeetEcho. And we do need, um, note and the second link is the note-taking. And the and the MeetEcho has a chat menu, and that's also if you have a, uh, Zulip chat chat client, that that's also is able to be a um, participate at the chat chat feature. Okay, today we are, um, um, we have the slot for the one hour. Um, we do need a minute-taker. Um, how many attendee we have? So, um, any of the volunteer, um, of the note-taker? So, prob- Brendan is meant to be speaking, so Josep, Michael, Ken, could you help taking the notes? Um, assuming the silent is okay. And so, this is the today's draft status. Um, yes. Draft SUIT Report, it's bumped to 20, um, and it's currently it's in the RFC editor queue. Um, and this and next one is SUIT Manifest, just bumped um, only two or three hours ago to 37. As this is also in the editor queue, and the SUIT Update Management is 12. Um, it's this one is waiting for the AD go-ahead. And these three top draft is the main topic today. Any agenda bashing? Oh. Yeah. Thank you, Michael, for, uh, helping the taking notes. Okay, um, Brendan, are you uh, would you like to start from the SUIT Manifest?

**Brendan Moran:** Yeah, absolutely. 

**Akira Tsukamoto:** Okay. Okay. Is it possible to see... Okay. Um, we have, uh, some updates to the SUIT Manifest. I want to apologize for the spec churn on this one. Three versions, uh, in a very short period of time was not my intent. Um, but that's, uh, how things have played out. So, we'll make the most of it, I guess. Um, there we go. Um, next slide, please. So, oh, there we go. Great. 

**Deb Cooley:** I just I just gave you slides. 

**Brendan Moran:** Thank you very much. So, the quick overview, uh, everyone here knows this. I'm going to skip the overview. So, our current status is we're on, uh, version 37. This is the coming up from the previous baseline that's been static for, um, well, a long time, uh, version 34. Um, version 35 it was, uh, the same essential change as version 36, but on the wrong, uh, baseline due to a merge conflict. So, that's that's been repaired. That was that was rebased, and that's why there's so many spec changes. Um, we're in the RFC Editor Queue. Um, we are blocked, essentially, on the, uh, well, the whole big SUIT cluster. Um, that is, uh, the the only reason for these changes is, uh, to acknowledge an IANA request and to acknowledge a, uh, an inconsistency that was brought up by SUIT participants. Uh, so the main actions that we had in February, there was a request at the February Interim for me to review and reply to manifest questions. Both co- and Ken had identified an inconsistency in the reporting parameters. Um, as I as I mentioned, version 35 was, uh, poorly implemented. So, I I fixed that in version 36, and version 37 handles the, uh, IANA tag allocation. And just going into those in slightly more detail, uh, all right, um, I think I'm just saying the same thing again here. So, we'll just skip over that. Right. Okay. So, open questions, um, we do need the IANA review to be, uh, well, we need them to take another look at it because of the the update. Um, because of these changes, uh, I believe we need a another working group last call. Now, this is some very minor changes. So, I don't think this should be a huge issue. One consistency change and one clarification at IANA's request. So, I think that should be pretty straightforward. There are no outstanding technical issues that I'm aware of beyond this. So, the IANA correction was to do with tag registrations. Originally, what was written was that, uh, one of the tags was for a SUIT envelope, and the other tag was for a SUIT manifest. Uh, IANA asked for that to be changed to a, uh, a map with SUIT envelope semantics and a map with SUIT manifest semantics. So, it's a relatively minor, uh, change caused by this. Uh, that is essentially the whole of the detail for the IANA correction. Uh, and then there's the CDDL col- correction that I've referred to. Both co- and Ken noticed this inconsistency, and all it was was that there was one line in the full CDDL that said, uh, send record success, um, and send record failure, and then there were matching lines in the text that, uh, were changed to suit rec- send record on success and suit send record on failure. Those were changed to the on success, on failure version in the text at the request of the working group some time back, but it appears that there was a, uh, the the CDDL was missed when that change was made, and as a result, that has left a trailing inconsistency. This change merely brings the CDDL up to date with the intended text. So, again, a fairly minor change. And that is all there is for the SUIT Manifest updates. Go ahead, Deb.

**Deb Cooley:** How long ago did IANA ask for this change, do you remember?

**Brendan Moran:** Um, I'm sorry, I don't remember. I I do have those details. I can bring them up if that's helpful.

**Deb Cooley:** I'm looking. It's on the mail list though, right?

**Brendan Moran:** Yeah. I think it's quite some time ago, and it was just missed as an oversight, and, um, you know, I was looking at all of the status on this because I want, you know, I was doing an update on the manifest anyway, and so I thought I would catch anything that might have been, uh, overlooked, and picked it up at that point.

**Deb Cooley:** So, you fixed the appendix, which is where the CDDL is.

**Brendan Moran:** Correct. 

**Deb Cooley:** And you fixed the IANA registry setting for the CBOR stuff.

**Brendan Moran:** Correct. 

**Deb Cooley:** Um, but you haven't made any, uh, real changes. They're all...

**Brendan Moran:** No. No, no substantive changes of any kind.

**Deb Cooley:** Okay.

**Brendan Moran:** So, I don't know, I mean, the diff the diff if it didn't have page numbers in it would be four lines.

**Deb Cooley:** Yes. Yes. I looked at the diff this morning, and I thought, oh, it's in the appendix, and he's only changed the words in the CDDL, he hasn't changed anything else. Was before, I didn't see the IANA, cuz I haven't looked at version 37. I looked at version 36. Um,

**Brendan Moran:** Fair enough.

**Deb Cooley:** Yeah. So, the way you described it made it sound like we needed to do working group last call. Once I looked at it, I thought, hmm, seems pretty simple. Maybe we... That was my hope. [laughter] Maybe we don't need to do working group last call. I mean, you know, this is such an active group. Um, so I don't So, what I would like to ask is whether one of the chairs can take a peek at this and see if they agree with me that this is a very teeny tiny change and therefore we can just like we can tell the editor when the editor asks, because they will, um, that it's fine.

**Jacqueline McCall:** I can do that today if you like.

**Deb Cooley:** Yeah. It is it is literally two lines plus whatever he had to do to change for the IANA stuff. The IANA setting, we can we can ask IANA to take another look, um, and I can do that after we're done here, if you want me to. Um, that will also happen as a result of, once this once we're finally all over and done with, before this gets published, IANA will take another look and will update whatever. Um,

**Brendan Moran:** I I had planned, after the meeting, when we knew what was happening with the working group last call, to send out an email to the IANA reviewer telling them that I believe that it was resolved. And, uh, and also to Ken. Well, Ken's here, so he knows. But, uh, also to co-, and tell him that I believe that the the issue he raised is resolved.

**Deb Cooley:** Okay. So, if Ken and co- believe that you've solved the issue, and if you go back to the, um, is it it's a CBOR registry, right? So, if you go back to the CBOR tag, yeah. If you go back to the DE there, we can wrap that up that way. Um, and then, uh, yeah, Michael Richardson's, "Based on what was reported, I think no additional working group last call." And I I agree with that. I think it's sort of silly to do a working group last call for basically what ends up looking like a typo in the CDDL. Um,

**Brendan Moran:** 100%. [laughter]

**Deb Cooley:** A little bit of overkill. Yeah. So, let's let's not do that. Um, but you do definitely need to go back to the DE. If you found that message and made the change, reply to the DE, and let's make sure that's squared away. Um,

**Brendan Moran:** Will do. 

**Deb Cooley:** And then and then when the editor comes to me and says, "Hey," [laughter] "I see you've made changes to this," I'll say, "Yeah, it's all okay." So,

**Brendan Moran:** Okay. Easy peasy. This one anyway. [laughter] The others I hope will be pretty easy peasy as well. Um, and with that in mind, let's go to the next deck. Oh, that was the last deck, which makes that complicated. Uh, here we go, change deck.

**Deb Cooley:** So, I just passed control back to Akira, who's bringing up a deck, I think. And then, what Akira needs to do is click on, if you look at Brendan's, uh, little thing on the right, there's a little document with a little plussy sign. You can click on that, and it'll give him control. It looks like a document with a plus sign in it.

**Akira Tsukamoto:** Document with a plus sign.

**Deb Cooley:** So, on the right hand side, if you're looking at the participants, Brendan will be green, and he has a message blob, a little document with a plus sign, and a couple of other icons there. If you click on the plus sign...

**Akira Tsukamoto:** Okay, there there it is. 

**Deb Cooley:** If you click on that, there you go. Woo, now he has control.

**Brendan Moran:** Got it. All right, here we go. So, SUIT Report, um, I'm going to assume that everyone knows what SUIT Report is, but I got the, uh, summary in there just in case someone goes and reads through the slides. All right, uh, current data tracker state, uh, we're up to version 20. Uh, the current status is blocked on MISREF. Um, there were, uh, a couple of changes brought in, and I will, uh, go through those changes in a moment here. So, there were some comments from Ken that were outstanding, and, uh, I have done the updates to address those comments. Um, there was a working group last call that was issued on version 20. Uh, I have not seen any response to that working group last call. So, I'm hoping that that means everything is fine. So, what has happened here is, uh, just a number of clarifications. So, we clarified that the reporting engine was a conceptual function, not a mandatory component or API. We clarified that suit record manifest ID and component index semantics across dependency manifests. Clarified why reporting why report recipients need to match, uh, manifest for suit record reconstruction, and then some CoAP and CDDL alignment. Uh, we don't have a closure from the working group last call. Uh, we will need, uh, IANA to take another look at this one as well. And, of course, there's MISREF, and beyond this, we are not aware of any technical issues. So, the report semantics, the main change was just that definition of, uh, the reporting engine as a conceptual component, not a local API. Uh, in other words, it tells you roughly how you might do this, but not, uh, that you have to implement this specific thing. Um, then the suit record manifest ID, uh, shows that it it does walk the dependency tree, and the component index remains scoped to the identified manifest. Um, we also have specified that you must not use a suit record for reconstruction without the matching manifest, and this is I mean, this is mechanically true, so it's strange that we have to have a normative language here, because it's impossible to reconstruct something without the manifest anyway. Uh, but nevertheless, due to the clarification around the, um, requirement of having a manifest reference, it seemed prudent to put the normative language in there. Um, the fact that normative language is being to is being put in to assert something that is already mechanically accurate, um, makes me think that this, despite adding normative language, is probably not a substantial change. Um, we have expanded the definitions of the, uh, transport protection. Uh, previously, we hadn't had COSE MAC0 listed. I believe that's an oversight, and it probably should have been listed. The one challenge with this, of course, is repudiation. Uh, if you use MAC for reporting, uh, you get what you pay for, and your recipient can fake records. So, that is less than ideal, but there you are. That's the wages of using a MAC. Um, we've also added COSE Encrypt0 and clarified some more, uh, on the partial or failure or partial report behavior, and where authentication and integrity sit with that. And then, finally, there is the last change here. Uh, we've changed the, uh, suit record, suit report, and capability report structures. Uh, it's just a that we were missing the repeated extension group. So, the extensions were there, but there was a, um, missing repeat character. So, that's, again, a typo in the CDDL, realistically. Um, suit parameters, uh, was aligned to the examples and standalone CDDL, um, and the system property claims and capability reporting CDDL were made consistent with the text. Um, so this is this is all just minor alignment and, uh, a couple of things that were not entirely obvious have been clarified. And that is it for SUIT Report.

**Akira Tsukamoto:** I recall that this uh, many of the changes, uh, started with when Ken was doing implementation. Um, do Ken, do you have comments?

**Ken Takayama:** I think all most problems have resolved. And, uh, I I had, uh, I have only one question that, uh, I think I I posted them email and, uh, that said, uh, the reference URI is I think still, uh, have issue, because in the suit-manifest, it is optional element, uh, but in suit-report, it is mandatory element. I think it is it's still accurate even with recent version?

**Brendan Moran:** Let me have a look, because I believe we just I believe there's an update to that in version 20. Let me have a look, because I believe I believe there was supposed to be an update to that in version 20 for that exact reason. Uh, suit report, okay, I've got that version open. Uh, I just need to get the CDDL and double check what I've got in here. Um, okay. I think the logic is if you have a digest, you need to have the URI as well. Does that make sense? Yes, but, uh, oh, let me have a look. I'll just double check. Yeah. Oh, I'm in the wrong one. Sorry. Here we go. Yeah, the whole reference doesn't have optional components in it, but I believe the reference itself was No, you're right that the, uh, the suit, um, the latest CDDL that I have, uh, does not have that listed as optional, and it should be. I believe the text has changed it to optional, um, but it looks like the CDDL has not got that update. Um, and yeah, no, that that's, okay. Um, that was an oversight. I'll get that corrected in a new version. Um, so, I I guess I should clarify with you, Ken. Um, you think that we should have the URI as a optional component of the reference, and leave the digest as mandatory? Is that correct?

**Ken Takayama:** In the in the suit-manifest, both text and CDDL says that the reference URI is optional, but in suit-report, the suit reference URI is mandatory in both text and CDDL, I think.

**Brendan Moran:** Okay. I I do understand that. Uh, the question is, do you want the whole reference to be optional, or just the URI?

**Ken Takayama:** Yes.

**Akira Tsukamoto:** Um, Ken, which one? Um, only suit URI to be optional is okay?

**Ken Takayama:** I think it is okay. Yeah.

**Brendan Moran:** Okay. Um, I have made that update on my local copy, and I will publish a new version, uh, very shortly.

**Akira Tsukamoto:** Thank you, Brendan.

**Brendan Moran:** No problem.

**Deb Cooley:** Can you double check the data tracker page? There was an IANA note at the on the IANA section of SUIT Report.

**Brendan Moran:** I will make sure that any IANA, um, comments are addressed.

**Deb Cooley:** So, what it says right, 9.3 says expert pointed out one editorial nit in Section 9.3, "coswid media type" should be "suit-report media type," which is interesting because the media type is 9.2, not 9.3.

**Brendan Moran:** I believe that that is a, uh, a stale comment. I I did double check that before uploading it, and what I have here is media type registration as the title, then I've got application/suit-report+cose and, uh, the subtype name is also suit-report+cose. So, I can't see, and I did even search through the whole thing and couldn't find "coswid" mentioned. So, I think we're good.

**Deb Cooley:** Okay, good.

**Brendan Moran:** All right. Unless there's anything else on SUIT Report, I will move to the next, uh, deck, which I think I can actually do. There we go. Ha ha. Excellent. Okay, and once again, I've got an overview here, but we're just going to skip through that. That's for posterity. All right. Uh, so, the current status here, again, we're in we're waiting for AD go-ahead. Uh, there is a version change, and so IANA is going to need to be pinged on that. Um, I have responded to all of the, uh, LC reviews, and, uh, I believe that was the main thing, uh, that we had as a list of actions from the February Interim. Okay, so we've process I've processed the four Last Call reviews. Um, the IANA review on version 10 was not okay. Now, I believe that has been addressed. And, uh, version 12, I want to apologize for the delay in this one going live, because it was actually handled about a week ago and and uploaded, but the publish was, uh, yeah, I I missed on the publish on that, so you should have had this a week earlier than you did. My apologies. Uh, so we've clarified that suit coswid, what why it's there, why it, uh, is the way it is, um, expanded a bit on rationale, added some terminology that had been requested, updated the IANA tables, and, uh, realigned the, uh, the CDDL for a bunch of the, um, parameters and metadata, etc. Uh, and going through those individually, oh, sorry, uh, outstanding work, um, we're still waiting for AD go-ahead, and hopefully, we've covered what we need for that now. Um, and handled the, uh, or we had, um, the request for confirmation, uh, from the reviewers. I have sent out emails indicating that I believe that their action items have been cleared. So, now we are just waiting to hear back from those reviewers. Hopefully, that will go smoothly. So, the with regards to coswid and SBOM, what we've done mainly here is clarified why coswid is recommended and why other extension metadata is not recommended. Uh, it's just optional, and the main thing here is the availability of SBOM capability and why that might be relevant to deploying firmware updates. Uh, we also describe what the recipient should do when coswid is unused, unsupported, severable, non-severable, malformed, policy rejected, or resource exhausting. Uh, it was Sector that asked about that, uh, so hopefully, this will answer their concerns. And I believe one of these at least, they specifically said, "Hey, you should move this section, uh, over there," and so we did. Uh, that, so I think we've taken all the feedback on board, and that should be all ready to go now. Um, with regards to versioning and battery, so this is, uh, semantic version guidance. Uh, the semver that we had defined accidentally used the term "positive integer" where it should have been non-negative or unsigned integer. Uh, so that had the false implication that zeroes were forbidden, which is not in fact the case. So, that, uh, terminology has been cleaned up and tightened, uh, and build number handling and ordering requirements have been cleaned up and tightened a bit, uh, and again, this is at the request of one of the Last Call reviewers. We've also clarified what a primary cell is, namely a, uh, dischargeable only battery, and clarified the use before and minimum battery encodings and the 64-bit timestamp handling. This was, uh, in response to Jen Art, uh, requests, and requests in a few other, uh, reviews. The IANA registrations have been updated into tables. So, you know, uh, we have a table now where before we we didn't, and, uh, hopefully, that clears things out, and that will, uh, solve the problem. And we do need to ask IANA to take another look. And then finally, there was some CDDL alignment that needed to be done. Uh, there were some extension member hooks missing, uh, some weight event and encodings, like the weight event UTC encoding was switched into a tagged integer where previously it hadn't been, and, um, and so on. So, we're we're just aligning with, uh, more common CBOR tags, etc. And we've also got the component metadata parameter and metadata fields and permissions updated. I think there was an alignment glitch that had happened at that some point in the past, and so that's, uh, that's rectified now. Uh, so this should align all the CDDL with its text, the IANA tables, and the rationale for each CDDL line. All right, so that is that. Uh, I believe that should resolve the remainder of the, um, open issues on update management.

**Deb Cooley:** Hello. So, has anybody looked at this? I mean, recognizing the changes are new, but... Um, I did ping Russ to ask him to he's the gen-art reviewer, right? Um, to see if he could take another look at this. Um, but everything that you've done is as a result of a directorate review or is basically formatting, is that accurate?

**Brendan Moran:** That's correct.

**Deb Cooley:** So, I'd like to give Russ a couple of more days, um, before I go put this on the telechat. Cuz that is the next step. You're waiting for me to put it on the telechat and issue the ballot. Um,

**Brendan Moran:** I believe so.

**Deb Cooley:** Yeah. Oh, I know so. [laughter] Um, so, I mean, I can go ahead and put it on the on the ballot, and if there's problems with it, you're going to hear about it, with telechat reviews. Um, I would like to wait and do this until that there's two telechats before Vienna. One is on the 2nd of July, and the other one is on the 8th of July. I'd like to technically put this on the 8th of July telechat. Um, just, and it's a personal A, I will be out of town on the 2nd of July, and B, I already have, I think, five drafts on the 2nd of July. [laughter] Which is not normal. Um, so I'd like to wait till the 8th of July so I can be in town and on that telechat. Um, and it gives people a little more time to look at it, and Russ a little more time to come back to us. So, I can go ahead and issue the ballot and put it on the 8th of July telechat, and we can wait for Russ, and I can ping Russ again, um, just to make sure, because he gave you that review in December of 2025, so it may take him a minute to remember what he was doing then. Um, [laughter] so, does that sound fair?

**Brendan Moran:** Sounds good to me.

**Akira Tsukamoto:** Um, does that mean this update will go into, after, uh, reply will go into working group last call?

**Deb Cooley:** No. You've already done that. You've already been through IETF last call too, right? It's been sitting. It finished IETF last call, um, probably sometime in December of 2025. So, we've been kind of hanging around post IETF last call for a while, um, and so the next step is for me to issue the ballot and put it on the telechat. The advantage to this is, if we can actually get this across the line, everything falls out, because you'll be done. Barring PQC, which is, you know, mandatory, [laughter] but, that's, again, you've got to, like, we got to get this all finished, right? So, as soon as everything's all in the Editor's Queue, I'm not sure how long you have to wait for the last one, or whether they all start rolling out at once, I don't know. I mean, they will start rolling out at once because they all have to be there. Um, but, uh, yeah, once you get everything into the Editor's Queue, then you can start working on your post-quantum one.

**Brendan Moran:** There we go. Um, that sounds good to me, at least. Not sure if it sounds good to everyone else.

**Deb Cooley:** Well, that's the question.

**Akira Tsukamoto:** Fine for me.

**Brendan Moran:** In about 30 seconds, Ken, you will have a new, uh, suit report draft. It'll be you'll get the email momentarily. It's live. Real-time changes.

**Deb Cooley:** Okay. So, I will issue the ballot, but I will tell them I will tell them to put it on the 8th of July telechat. Um, the cutoff for drafts is, I think, the 6th of July. Cleverly. For Vienna.

**Brendan Moran:** Okay. I don't think we have a, uh, a session at Vienna, do we?

**Deb Cooley:** We do.

**Jacqueline McCall:** Yes, we do. We requested one, so we just have to wait to see if we get that.

**Brendan Moran:** Okay.

**Deb Cooley:** So, the so, the advantage there is, we can if are you if if you register for Vienna, we can pester you about the telechat changes in Vienna. [laughter]

**Brendan Moran:** Well, I'll be remote, I'm afraid. I don't think I'm going to get a chance to go to Vienna this time.

**Deb Cooley:** Well, I mean, I can twist arms remotely.

**Brendan Moran:** [laughter]

**Deb Cooley:** It's at least close to the right time zone for you though, right?

**Brendan Moran:** That's true. Yes.

**Deb Cooley:** Mm. Okay, um, right. So, hopefully, that uh, that's that, right? I I surrender the floor. [laughter]

**Akira Tsukamoto:** Yes, I think we went through all the three draft today's agenda, and I see Brendan's, um, um, pull request being pushed to the GitLab, GitHub. Um, so any, um... Michael is asking, "What agenda items are there for Vienna? Recharter status tracker?" Um, not sure about it. Um, we do need to go through the status of all these three drafts, how it went.

**Deb Cooley:** So, I I could be wrong, but I suspect you'll be talking about SUIT updates there. I mean, it's possible that I that I will be wrong, and that you can talk about your post-quantum draft because SUIT update will be done and in the RFC editor by then. But I would bet you a nickel we're talking about SUIT update and how to get it how to get it across the finish line. And if not, it's the post-quantum draft.

**Brendan Moran:** You mean SUIT Update Management, that one.

**Deb Cooley:** That one. Yeah. So, that's the only one that's not all the way through the IESG process. Everything else that we've talked about today, the manifest draft, the reporting, the report draft, everything is already in the Editor's Queue. They're just making like cleanup changes to them, and like they're catching they're catching problems with by by looking at implementations, to fix these things before they're actually published, which is actually awesome, um, because then you don't have to file a errata because of some implementation thing that you missed. Um, but updates' the only thing that's not all the way through the IESG process. So, if we put that on the telechat for the 8th of July, and he gets, uh, a bunch of comments, don't don't look at the two drafts I had on the telechat today, for how many discusses they had. [laughter] Michael Michael might have seen this. I don't know. Um, but, uh, yeah, I expect that you will have changes to make and things to update. Based on past history with the IESG. But in a in a in a in a perfect world, that would be all done, and you could then talk about what you're going to do with the post-quantum draft. So, I think there's stuff to talk about either way. It's only I think you've only scheduled an hour meeting, so I don't I don't think should be too bad.

**Akira Tsukamoto:** Ken, is it okay? And thank you for the Ken doing all the implementation and finding out all the CDD format mismatch and and, yeah, uh, fixes.

**Ken Takayama:** My pleasure.

**Akira Tsukamoto:** Yes, thank you. And um, if any other topics today? Okay, thank you very much. Um, I hope we could see you as much as possible face-to-face in Vienna. If not, um, remotely, but um, I will be, at the moment, I intend to go to, uh, attend a Vienna. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much.