Subject: [Cbor] Planning for the Vancouver meeting

From: Jim Schaad <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2020 12:05:40 -0700

It appears that the logistics for the upcoming meeting in Vancouver are
going to be more complicated than is normal.  To start with at the present
time it appears that neither of the chairs are going to be physically
present for the meeting.

Please let the chairs know if you desire to do a presentation for Vancouver.
We will need the following information:

1.  What document or proposed document are you addressing?
2.  How long do you think it is going to take?
3.  Are you planning to give the presentation locally or remotely?  If you
are going to be remote is there somebody who might be able to do it locally?

In addition to the normal volunteers for a Jabber Scribe (local) and one or
more notetakers (one local and others either local or remote), we are going
to need to get somebody to sit up at the front of the meeting and get slides
up and press buttons for meetecho.  If you can do any of these please let us
know that as well.

Jim & Francesca

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 17:39:37 +0100

Hi Jim,

> On 2020-03-08, at 20:05, Jim Schaad <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-cbor-cddl-freezer-03
This now has a number of items that could be picked up and made into one or more draft specifications, among these:

(a) the JSON form of a CDDL spec
(b) ABNF in CDDL

We should gauge interest in the WG for completing these specifications.

> On 2020-03-08, at 20:05, Jim Schaad <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bormann-cbor-time-tag-03
This may also be interesting in the context of Mike Jones’ draft
It probably makes sense to pursue the two on their own timelines, but we may want to ponder that part of the landscape, including what other functions we want to put into the time-tag.

> are going to be remote is there somebody who might be able to do it locally?

Planning is a bit hard at the moment, but I’d say remote is more likely.

Obviously, we should also process the WGLC comments on 7049bis.

Grüße, Carsten