Re: [Cbor] CBOR tags for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and prefixes

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 29 January 2021 17:02 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 374BD3A1176 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 09:02:38 -0800 (PST)
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 p4evNYolAq7u for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 09:02:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0ADF83A1172 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 09:02:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23043389AA; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:05:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 1o9Q_eAq7z-R; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:05:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C55389A4; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:05:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B049E645; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:02:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Christian =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Fiso-8859-1=3FQ=3FAms=3DFCss=3F=3D?= <christian@amsuess.com>, cbor@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <YBPaEj1Bty+x5gjU@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
References: <161160506696.8820.4814310513726926040@ietfa.amsl.com> <13114.1611606075@localhost> <YBPaEj1Bty+x5gjU@hephaistos.amsuess.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: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 12:02:32 -0500
Message-ID: <12177.1611939752@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/5TKwiqltEo6XBseHG2YbsyBP-IU>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] CBOR tags for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and prefixes
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: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 17:02:38 -0000

Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com> wrote:
    >> I was not satisfied with the semantics of tag 260 and 261.

    > Have there been positive experiences in the group with tag 260?

    > In particular, I'm thinking of draft-ietf-core-href which, for the
    > payload of its host.ip production, uses the same length dispatch
    > between IPv4 and IPv6 (in an untagged form).

A complaint is that this requires 8 zero bytes when describing a typical /64
prefix.

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