Re: [dispatch] IETF 116 - do you have something for DISPATCH?

[Christopher Allen <[e-mail]>]

*(sorry if this msg might be a dup — I'm having problems with emails sent
from google to ietf, and am trying an alternative sender)*

On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 11:01 PM Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Welcome to present your project in Dispatch and hope we could together
> figure out something helpful.
>

That would be great! Thank you very much.


> I will book a slot for you in our Agenda in this meeting. Shall I use the
> title of “Gordian Envelope” and put you as the presenter?
>

I suggest "Gordian Envelope & Deterministic CBOR" as the talk title, to
talk about our I-D, but it leverages specific § 4.2 subset of CBOR in RFC
8949 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8949#section-4.2) that may
interest a broader audience.

Wolf McNally, my co-author of this draft will be my co-presenter.

How much time should we prepare for? We will need to participate virtually
for the Japan IETF, but plan to be F2F for San Francisco.

You mentioned about your willingness about a revised draft, would it be a
> new draft or based on this draft
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mcnally-envelope-00.html? You could present
> the work you want to do in your presentation so people would know more
> about your idea and work with you.
>

The plan is to update that draft from -00 to -01 in the next to address
some comments already received from members of various standards groups (in
particular W3C).  We presented to the W3C Credential Community Group two
weeks ago.

Regarding the BoF, it is great that you have the support to justify a BOF.
> However, it would be too late to have a BoF in this IETF116 since the
> Cut-off date (2023-02-17) for Area Directors to approve BOFs has passed. By
> presenting and attending this IETF you would probably get more support, and
> you would collect advice to have an effective BoF in the next IETFs.
>

We knew that we didn't have what would be necessary to qualify for a BOF
for Japan — our goal is to do what is required to demonstrate support for
one in San Francisco. We are not quite sure of other requirements we need
to satisfy beyond the deadline for applying by May 26 for a San Francisco
BOF.

Regarding the work with CBOR, I found that there are some discussions on
> this topic in CBOR WG recently. Please see the archived email. It was
> actually your email being forwarded. Maybe you could start joining the
> discussions there.
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/l7nzQHFjfpK9nfBOHiQ1L-Rr558/
>

Thank you, I missed that one. I will reply there. There are multiple other
groups that we hope might consider taking Gordian Envelope under their
wing.

You could summarize your requests in your presentation at Dispatch WG and
> ask for advice from the community.
>

One of the specific challenges that we are seeking advice for is IANA
registration. We understand with our I-D that we probably have met the
criteria for qualifying for higher ranges of numbers for IANA registration
of our CBOR tags, but as part of the goal of Gordian Envelope use of CBOR
is to be concise, getting a smaller byte tag can be quite advantageous for
the long term. So should we request from IANA now to make sure there are no
collisions with others requesting tags, or wait until a group helps us
qualify for a smaller CBOR tag? Best practices for working with IANA would
be great.

Again, thank you for your help!

-- Christopher Allen

>