Re: [Cbor] changes in draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 25 July 2021 01:37 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 A10063A0D10; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 18:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 ISqyw9B1rPb1; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 18:37:37 -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 D79FE3A0D1A; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 18:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52E5E38A3D; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 21:41:10 -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 gX7upfxaGDTK; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 21:41:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6DC738A3C; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 21:41:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 759BC2CC; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 21:37:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
cc: cbor@ietf.org, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMGpriUnfMjhk7teAN-A0j5SCK=BpyJEDC+NOCJtHzmF1BFeow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <162608928922.11086.12172415971165753394@ietfa.amsl.com> <29067.1626090045@localhost> <CAMGpriUnfMjhk7teAN-A0j5SCK=BpyJEDC+NOCJtHzmF1BFeow@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 21:37:30 -0400
Message-ID: <8065.1627177050@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/3IZwOc9qBGJFDzfQRXQSoSaxKLg>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] changes in draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05.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: Sun, 25 Jul 2021 01:37:51 -0000

Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Was there any interest in figuring out a representation for link-local
    > addresses (e.g. 169.254.x.y, fe80::zed, ff02::pqr, ...) that included
    > either an interface name or index as part of a structured unit?  Perhaps
    > some generic {address_info, interface_info} pairing that could be used the
    > same way?

We will name the third form "Interface Format" or "Inteface Definition Format"

I think that the concern about the scope could only apply to that format,
or to the Address format.
Hmm. Well, the more I think about it, the more I think it applies to Address only.

I imagine we might find a way to do this differently.
Best I think think about is abusing maps in some way here.
     { 'eth0' => h'fe800db81234DEEDBEEFCAFEFACEFEED' }

    > Obviously, it's possible to pair what you've described here together with
    > extra interface information separately on an ad hoc basis.

I'd like to avoid inventing syntax before we need it.
So, let's talk about how you might use this?

I heard a talk about Extended ICMP Echo from Ron Bonica this week, and I can
see how it might have used it, but that ship has sailed.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide