Re: [Cbor] Reminder: CBOR WG Virtual Meeting on 2024-01-24

[Wolf McNally <[e-mail]>]

All,

After conferring with Christopher we’re going to remove this proposed agenda item for today’s meeting.

~ Wolf

> On Jan 23, 2024, at 1:22 PM, Christopher Allen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 12:05 AM Carsten Bormann <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> On Jan 23, 2024, at 03:25, Christopher Allen <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> >  So far, I've not seen any interest from the members of [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> for interoperabile standards for graph data and other forms of structured data.
>> 
>> I think some of the hesitation here comes from the fact that defining such a standard would be a substantial undertaking.
>> 
>> It would require attracting experts that are experienced in the subject and are interested in contributing to a standard.  I’m sure we have expertise already in the CBOR WG, but it may not be representative enough of the field to create a credible standard.
>> 
>> The normal route of introducing such a work item into the IETF would be to go through the DISPATCH WG.
>> DISPATCH might decide to dispatch the item to the CBOR WG, or might suggest running a BOF to attract those experts and have a discussion about the work item as such, with potential outcomes of the BOF again proposing to assign the work item to the existing WG or creating a new WG.  WGs are relatively inexpensive, so the latter is quite conceivable.
> 
> We do plan to request time at the next DISPATCH WG in Brisbane to share a first internet-draft of a "Problem Statement and Areas of Work for Hashed Data Elision" (pre-I-D version at https://hackmd.io/GqY8eZtMQQygjuAn3aj1Ow, comments and contributions welcome!).
> 
> However, one question is that maybe we should also be offereing a "Problem Statement and Areas of Work for Graph Data and other Structured Data" to DISPATCH WG in addition to it. We are on track to have the first I-D available by DISPATCH WG deadline of 4 March 2024, but also doing the second I-D would be tight.
>  
>> I think a good next step would be to identify the communities that we want to have on-board for this effort to succeed.  Once we know these and have some buy-in, we can worry about the formal way to establish that work in the IETF.  Of course, getting some buy-in requires an outlook that such an introduction into the IETF can succeed, so it is worth to discuss this larger effort with entities such as the CBOR WG, the ART ADs (which are changing at IETF 119) and to obtain some positive feedback.
> 
> So is this worthy of discussion on the agenda tomorrow? Or is it better to continue on the list?
> 
> Also, what is the best way to engage the ART ADs, on this topic, especially given the changeover?
> 
> -- Christopher Allen