Re: [Cbor] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 26 July 2021 14:46 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 01FE43A17BA; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 sYj7fpY6lkhj; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24A293A1758; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 07:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (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-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4GYN5R1YB6z2xN2; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 16:45:47 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+bBm-vc35Zj-rUCKq8A0AL+tBDcc0u612Qhmz23qPCHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 16:45:46 +0200
Cc: draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses.all@ietf.org, IETF IoT Directorate <iot-directorate@ietf.org>, Mohit Sethi <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com>, cbor@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 649003545.554381-a014f12583e279ddb16eb321ecdcd686
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <189D1249-232C-4667-8603-3E6791166877@tzi.org>
References: <162729343263.13734.5774247416866337222@ietfa.amsl.com> <ECE0152F-121F-4EC4-94C3-EC7DB4A115D0@tzi.org> <CALaySJ+Xf0B2EUFJJ3h19BMKZBcTQaiR4uk+LdoaM5MG_+R1-Q@mail.gmail.com> <0F643A58-126F-4DAA-B5CF-485C092369F5@tzi.org> <CALaySJ+bBm-vc35Zj-rUCKq8A0AL+tBDcc0u612Qhmz23qPCHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/2kIzS2wIcRqA46uVgH4hEcOibe0>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05
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: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 14:46:32 -0000

In 2021-07-26, at 16:38, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> 
>> We could expand that a bit more.
> 
> Maybe just a sentence, like, "These new tags should be used in
> preference to tags 260 and 261."  Or some such.

How about “the new tags are intended to be used in preference…”?

We can’t place a SHOULd or SHould or should here, but we can state the intention.

Grüße, Carsten

> 
> b
> 
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 10:19 AM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2021-07-26, at 15:42, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> But if the working
>>> group would rather see such new implementors use 52/54, it would be
>>> useful to have a few words about that in this document, however brief
>>> and however non-normative.
>> 
>> Right.  The intro says about our motivation:
>> 
>>   [RFC8949] defines a number of CBOR Tags for common items.  Tags 260
>>   and 261 were later defined through IANA.  These tags cover addresses
>>   (260), and prefixes (261).  Tag 260 distinguishes between IPv4, IPv6
>>   and Ethernet through the length of the byte string only.  Tag 261 was
>>   not documented well enough to be used.
>> 
>>   This specification provides a format for IPv6 and IPv4 addresses,
>>   prefixes, and addresses with prefixes, achieving an explicit
>>   indication of IPv4 or IPv6.  Prefixes omit trailing zeroes in the
>>   address.  […]
>> 
>> We could expand that a bit more.
>> 
>> Grüße, Carsten
>>