IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] Supporting IPv6 Link-Local with scope (was Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 07 October 2021 11:50 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 68B003A0FC6; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 04:50:12 -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 qhAh9OcO4hs5; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 04:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96FC13A0FCA; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 04:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a8ac.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.172]) (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 4HQ8kx2XzCz2xfc; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 13:50:01 +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: <MWHPR1101MB2222D750BC6AFB9B40CED892B5B19@MWHPR1101MB2222.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 13:50:00 +0200
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "d3e3e3@gmail.com" <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, "barryleiba@computer.org" <barryleiba@computer.org>, "cbor-chairs@ietf.org" <cbor-chairs@ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 655300200.570668-97ba6461969c94859ac2fb29829c298e
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <49287F64-6F79-4946-8C0E-80D6F310A6D6@tzi.org>
References: <163344085669.17315.998599560097016034@ietfa.amsl.com> <24367.1633460118@localhost> <1fcf3889-57d1-83f5-2913-51ae9155130b@gmail.com> <6442.1633537138@localhost> <MWHPR1101MB222228806BD87376FC6CC290B5B19@MWHPR1101MB2222.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <07FBA968-577E-4C89-B840-85EE16888E19@tzi.org> <MWHPR1101MB2222D750BC6AFB9B40CED892B5B19@MWHPR1101MB2222.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/3tZFE9Zpl9MYTWdBMDhszPcIEOs>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Supporting IPv6 Link-Local with scope (was Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))
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: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 11:50:13 -0000

On 2021-10-07, at 13:00, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Carsten,
> 
> Snipped most of it, just one comment inline ...
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
>> Sent: 07 October 2021 11:39
>> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>
> <snipped> 
>>> - How often are zones actually used?  Would it not just be simpler to always
>> use a string interface identifier?
>> 
>> Ifindex and Ifname are two different concepts that should not be mixed.
>> The textual nature of RFC 6991 makes it seem natural to always use a textual
>> representation for the Ifindex; this is not the case here.
> 
> Okay, so thinking about converting from YANG to this CBOR representation, then would the expectation be that it is okay to use a string that represents an integer?  

If I needed to write a converter from YANG ietf-inet-types, I would match on digits only and then create an unsigned integer, and use a text string otherwise.

> And is that logically the same or different?  Or would the expectation be that the zone string should be converted (normalized) to an integer
> if it can be?  

You’d need to be on the system in question, and the conversion result might be rather ephemeral...

> Does any of this need to be specified?

Depends on where the conversion from YANG ietf-inet-types to CBOR 52/54 should be specified.  With zero operational experience, that would seem a bit more speculative to me than I like.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email