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

["Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christopher,

A 20-min slot has been booked for you with the information you mentioned, including your co-presenter, your draft and RFC8949 as references. Please let me know if 20-min is not enough.

Regarding advice on BoF and IANA registration, I would suggest you talking with our ADs directly to get more information. I have copied the ADs’ email.

You could find general information on BoF in this link https://www.ietf.org/how/bofs/.

Best Regards,
Shuping

From: Christopher Allen [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 5:48 AM
To: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Wolf McNally <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] IETF 116 - do you have something for DISPATCH?



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