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

Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 07 August 2021 00:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
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 73E9D3A2116; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 17:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 7Fhrgnb6tI3G; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 17:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22f.google.com (mail-oi1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF0B13A2115; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 17:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id s13so5259853oie.10; Fri, 06 Aug 2021 17:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=T8L9iT0TUfBhW+4a4LlCh9yfG7O/HYeqHT3c1jYLhzQ=; b=QT2i/7BriSQKyb6nrlBM4nKeuopDwHMbHQWIx2fDQ3CbWS+QB48tj8xCPmMyOqiUkZ M1946mniCxc7I8tiu/igvu4hcB9UGlFnZd4B8wwAYpW61tYa1KLjcg7KWN4mlBK7jwoi xOKuzEeH+/1LgP/z5qxHJAWCqAXdvwy8o5BHPusUJuABimPZ/dqTrlNxtM56+upgcxWd eRUCXjDrChkPtm09RqNFbPp4n5FrQONtdeve4Rbd5p9fF4KR2b+tQw9vmYwCPANiBRNQ 8PhzO0V2yp8J/PmZ+NuHILEri9vo5obNTAW+N7NkkZqnv1uOPp0n1U86rtNZrQUrPFJz 3JrQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=T8L9iT0TUfBhW+4a4LlCh9yfG7O/HYeqHT3c1jYLhzQ=; b=UGBIZNy9AfRzSHeC4GkvceCP8nZXIkQMeITijt9ZowIIZjVYgo1dk7Z8DNEy1Js167 3LA/H514xmRTXCrKQS92HlyjZ2JGTSrMPVSuHN1wJwMbi/KUgmCNfZg2Cql087mexXKp XoHwidkxSuUuznDAT2o0Jbx/r9iDYKp6vpstKMi17eTxCM2mO+nC8JjgV3I6wMEDJcxw lg71tYDPmLBGKruu1sv3JLgP9pEoMik6Monmr/ZySaiwppkVzCKgQ2+WjfNL6MF24zP4 htBkWvjGHiLLPspa+ondenDX/DenGUuL6v3bQP5RVAGCH45IJX8GXQAwRXe/VDSk6NnE EGcA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530gpnUWVuYkzlpe6QdWet8rwus2JHdy0NSJA8qVEHt/cn4jCPkT eYGO+qvfk0B2CxHV7953YNs0TQq7zAESZvVWmOE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxmwSLv2TCuNtbbyu94kOydy9zd1gS+PBo2GZupIXvtxp90oxYnVPxjp38BV2isI2c8J9F9V4YNspxg8v7zQec=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:349:: with SMTP id j9mr9320483oie.77.1628296669672; Fri, 06 Aug 2021 17:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMGpriUnfMjhk7teAN-A0j5SCK=BpyJEDC+NOCJtHzmF1BFeow@mail.gmail.com> <aa9884b5-fd58-60cb-fa1d-b2d76f5a09a1@gmail.com> <VI1PR07MB6256E2C9CC9565FF2F080B5DA0E89@VI1PR07MB6256.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <c2c7a576-e138-1364-5ed0-a2987c1c1974@gmail.com> <20210727210706.buavt5nwairrjblf@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <e889a219-26b2-2a2e-6d05-bb6c7db1f89d@gmail.com> <20210801113001.yksklfouoz6v4hvz@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <b5f1c62e-4aa4-a397-8777-b3ec0eeafccc@gmail.com> <20210802070839.g2tjn3pqu5lpbd54@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <541ec837-d5ad-2c3f-aa98-6d9af4e11c53@gmail.com> <20210803055327.ma3pvyr7flrcd3b5@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <863babe9-6d3e-fb25-7c7d-826171f48d57@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <863babe9-6d3e-fb25-7c7d-826171f48d57@gmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2021 17:37:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMGpriVqWKSZ32hx3Y1mghe3se4qd3-=7FTJNVuB1L5kVWQrQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000095b92705c8ed5ce1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/9VyHUXtS4eBuoTJMtZj-z0thN3Q>
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: Sat, 07 Aug 2021 00:37:56 -0000

>
>
> > Given that ietf-interfaces does key interfaces by name (which reflects
> > the common practice of network operators to refer to router interfaces
> > by name), it seems the ship has sailed.
>
> In some contexts, but not all. In the cbor-network-addresses context,
> if we do anything, it would seem wise to support an integer and a string
> format, to cover the bases. But I'd be inclined to leave it as a future
> extension.


Deferring for another document (and, presumably, some more clearly
articulated motivation) makes sense to me.  I'm sorry I triggered
the digression, though the conversation has been interesting.

--

WRT to names vs indices vs <other>, I think 4007 S6 defining "zone index"
as a core concept is fairly straightforward, though I think it's things
like RFCs 3493 and 3542 that make these unsigned integer indices the de
facto standard.  (if_nametoindex() is just a nicety, as every other
zone-aware API call uses unsigned ints)