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

Michael Richardson <> Sun, 25 July 2021 01:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A10063A0D10; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 18:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ISqyw9B1rPb1; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 18:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D79FE3A0D1A; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 18:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52E5E38A3D; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 21:41:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by localhost (localhost []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id gX7upfxaGDTK; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 21:41:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6DC738A3C; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 21:41:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 759BC2CC; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 21:37:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Erik Kline <>
cc:, 6MAN <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <29067.1626090045@localhost> <>
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: <>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] changes in draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2021 01:37:51 -0000

Erik Kline <> 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 <>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide