IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-02.txt

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 09 June 2021 11:17 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 E00583A0E39 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 04:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_FAIL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 0KERgKiUDqcO for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 04:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A71923A0E32 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 04:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p548dcc89.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4G0PhL255Pz2xJ0; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 13:17:06 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CANMZLAaDizUSi8mcLbjAE15DFwid53VfDG1JbyK5tV6rki4+gw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 13:17:05 +0200
Cc: cbor@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6DCE0433-5FED-493C-9AD3-AA28D50CFF86@tzi.org>
References: <161530094514.13640.13557132723821236873@ietfa.amsl.com> <DE9E58FC-13DE-4AD5-B0EC-EBF0DC13153A@tzi.org> <CANMZLAaDizUSi8mcLbjAE15DFwid53VfDG1JbyK5tV6rki4+gw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.100.0.2.22)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/1E3wehtLFWLnapUv87a3HEPVy3c>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-02.txt
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, 09 Jun 2021 11:17:15 -0000

On 9. Jun 2021, at 12:21, Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> You'll note that 8992 is Informational. If it proves useful, I'd be glad to see it updated, not necessarily compatibly.

I’m just lamenting that I should have paid attention.

Interestingly, the draft was approved with no ART AD review (back in 2017), which is possible for informational: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8992/ballot/
More reason to pay attention earlier.  
(I’m not asking for YANG doctors here: as you said, the document does its job.)

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email