IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] changes to draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-01.txt

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 09 March 2021 14:50 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 5A7E83A0E5A for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 06:50:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 5_EfmP8XjObr for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 06:50:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B8B03A0E63 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 06:50:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a828.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Dvymb6Y7hzyWs; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 15:50:07 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <23184.1615301073@localhost>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 15:50:07 +0100
Cc: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 636994207.305571-678852c01f7608f511164a51caf428a9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B16E5C16-0B3D-47AB-9BBE-D9787CC661AC@tzi.org>
References: <161266446471.542.2418789735601546566@ietfa.amsl.com> <a15c4d67-e67f-c210-0477-29564c2b67e0@gmail.com> <30430.1615160268@localhost> <EDD97469-5F4F-4182-A81C-ABAE2D86F075@tzi.org> <23184.1615301073@localhost>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/6knxwpKZgk2OIcsOrmMTISEXz2U>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] changes to draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-01.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: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 14:50:28 -0000


> On 2021-03-09, at 15:44, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> 
> Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>> I think prefixes and addresses are completely separate use cases.
> 
>> There is rarely a point in suppressing trailing zeroes in an address.
>> We shouldn’t burden implementations to cater to this 0.4 % case
>> (probably less in practice).
> 
> okay.  I will take this constructive criticism and edit as you suggest.
> When the byte-string is short, is it invalid then?

Yes (for an address).

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email