Markdown Version | Transcript | Session Recording

CBOR

Summary

The CBOR Working Group met to discuss the status and next steps for two active drafts: draft-ietf-cbor-serialization (CBOR Serialization and Determinism) and draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals (Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN)).

For draft-ietf-cbor-serialization, the group discussed whether the document should update RFC 8949, how to proceed with CDDL implementation validation, and plans for the next draft revision.

For draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals, the group discussed pending proposals, consensus items, and the next steps for the chairs to synthesize list discussion.

Key Discussion Points

CBOR Serialization and Determinism (draft-ietf-cbor-serialization)

Laurence Lundblade provided an update on the progress of addressing comments from Joe, Martin, and Michaela. A new revision of the draft is expected in one to two weeks.

The discussion focused on three primary areas:

• Checking Decoder Clarifications: Laurence Lundblade noted some remaining ambiguity regarding comments from Joe on checking decoders and what constitutes a checking decoder.
• Updating RFC 8949: The group discussed whether draft-ietf-cbor-serialization should formally update RFC 8949.
  • Laurence Lundblade noted that the change in rules regarding tag numbers is the primary technical reason to update RFC 8949.
  • Barry Leiba recommended marking it as an update to ensure that implementers and readers of RFC 8949 are directed to this document.
  • Ira McDonald agreed with this approach, stating it is a strong reason to mark it as an update for refinement and explanation of existing concepts.
  • Decision: The document will be marked as updating RFC 8949. Laurence Lundblade will add the update flag and include explanatory text in the abstract and introduction.
• CDDL for Deterministic and Preferred Plus: Laurence Lundblade raised the need for CDDL implementation experience, noting that validators have not yet implemented these features.
  • Carsten Bormann explained that CDDL validators currently do not retain serialization variant information from incoming data items, which makes implementing this extension a larger effort. Carsten suggested that a full CDDL extension might need its own document rather than just a section within draft-ietf-cbor-serialization, but committed to working on an implementation to explore the implications.

Concise Diagnostic Notation (CDN) (draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals)

Carsten Bormann reported that he is waiting on WG decisions regarding which of the 11 proposals should be included in the document.

• Carsten Bormann noted there appeared to be prior consensus to:
  • Remove stream
  • Remove CBOR 888 and 999
  • Accept Christian's ellipsis removal proposal
• Carsten Bormann has submitted a Pull Request (PR) for one area, which Rohan Mahy has reviewed (comments pending).
• Barry Leiba noted that the co-chairs (Paul Hoffman and Christian Amsüss) were not present but will review the list discussion and post their consensus determinations to the mailing list.
• Вадим Гончаров noted that participation has been low due to the summer vacation season, but pointed out that proposals he made in June had previously received strong support. Barry Leiba suggested waiting for the co-chairs' post, after which Вадим Гончаров can follow up with links to earlier discussions if any supported proposals were missed. Вадим Гончаров agreed to this approach.

Decisions and Action Items

• Decision: draft-ietf-cbor-serialization will be marked as updating RFC 8949.
• Action Item: Laurence Lundblade to add the update flag to draft-ietf-cbor-serialization and add explanatory text in the introduction and abstract.
• Action Item: Carsten Bormann to work on implementing the proposed CDDL extensions to gain implementation experience.
• Action Item: Co-chairs (Paul Hoffman and Christian Amsüss) to review outstanding EDN proposals on the mailing list and post their consensus determinations.

Next Steps

• Laurence Lundblade to publish an updated version of draft-ietf-cbor-serialization in approximately one to two weeks.
• The working group will await the co-chairs' mailing list post regarding the draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals proposals and resume discussion on the list.

Related Documents

draft-ietf-cbor-edn-literals, draft-ietf-cbor-serialization