IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-08

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 22 September 2021 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 1A11C3A0F0E for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 vVKzPwetkRzh for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 626A53A0F2E for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B98AF18102; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:14:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 5d2ai1oMKg9Q; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:14:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEBFA180FC; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:14:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83BB8FC; Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:07:08 -0400 (EDT)
To: cbor@ietf.org, rjsparks@nostrum.com
References: <163209269789.22340.15328778942438342106@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <d284d8db-35e9-9825-40ff-b318acf3b5b9@sandelman.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:07:08 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <163209269789.22340.15328778942438342106@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/-Nelco9MjonB_TjvVt8gLlwcgV0>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-08
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, 22 Sep 2021 20:07:18 -0000

On 2021-09-19 7:04 p.m., Robert Sparks via Datatracker wrote:
> Should the IANA registry (and/or the document) say something more about what
> one can do if one wanted to represent an Ethernet address? 260 allowed that but
> you are deprecating it - are you only deprecating it for v4 and v6 use, or do
> you hope its use goes away completely?

I have no opinion, and it's why I didn't set out to deprecate them at 
all.  The WG consensus wanted this note added, so I think that the WG 
ought to weigh in.

I noted that 260 doesn't accommodate 8-byte ethernet addresses (used in 
802.15.4 today, and apparently a future ethernet spec).

How about:

-IANA is requested to add the note "DEPRECATED in favor of 52 and 54" to 
registrations 260 and 261
+IANA is requested to add the note "DEPRECATED in favor of 52 and 54 for 
IP addresses" to registrations 260 and 261

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email