Re: [Cbor] Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions (cbor) WG Virtual Meeting: 2020-09-02 CHANGED

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 02 September 2020 13:51 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BEE33A0D55 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 06:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N15kT-mBEI8z for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 06:51:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D03983A0CE2 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 06:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.102] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BhQM96LLSz10PX; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 15:51:01 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <159905204334.21573.13655336453067750687@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 15:51:01 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 620747461.328207-82813072a68c8d6a0bf1a646b9c8bae9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B6F74EBB-A2CA-4134-BEC2-3EF370DB2A74@tzi.org>
References: <159905204334.21573.13655336453067750687@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/N32xkgcMKlKxULGM6c2ia0Z-e8M>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Concise Binary Object Representation Maintenance and Extensions (cbor) WG Virtual Meeting: 2020-09-02 CHANGED
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 13:51:07 -0000

On 2020-09-02, at 15:07, IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
>    * draft-ietf-cbor-7049bis-14 
>    IESG telechat: 2020-09-10

So we have two telechat reviews so far:

The SECDIR review asks us to significantly expand the security considerations, in particular asking implementers to supply information about their tag validation efforts in a structure that is to be defined, in a way that feels a bit like a PICS proforma to me.

The discussion so far ended at:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/YrAQl7JmuX_G8WJtMrz30YMyKfo>

The GENART review is priceless:

> Overall good, but a little on the verbose side which can result in one skipping
> over important details.

This is of course a danger that was in the minds of the editors all the time; it is not that easy to find the right optimum here.

So how do we react to these somewhat conflicting reviews?
Let’s talk about that in a bit more than an hour.

Grüße, Carsten