IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-04.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 27 April 2021 19:15 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 E05AA3A1CAE; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 igG7JvKyrck4; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1739E3A1CAA; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 12:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA5F43898B; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:23:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id JwHKGRPmde4x; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 15:23:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 106D438A2E; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:48:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2651F4F5; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:40:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, cbor@ietf.org, 6man@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <B077F0BB-A409-4FB8-92FB-987B214F9C24@tzi.org>
References: <12496.1619216560@localhost> <C3A4A868-4B39-4428-93AA-D0B88F79B9BD@employees.org> <14010.1619395579@localhost> <20BFAC30-05C3-4279-92A0-612D2304EE1E@tzi.org> <22810.1619461385@localhost> <B077F0BB-A409-4FB8-92FB-987B214F9C24@tzi.org>
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: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:40:15 -0400
Message-ID: <25231.1619538015@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/AY4VZ-0pXOnE-8I1ecu4ydp0zSA>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-04.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, 27 Apr 2021 19:15:25 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    > On 26. Apr 2021, at 20:23, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    >>
    >> I find the need for a third case a bit inelegant, but I can live with it.

    > The purpose of the tag is to indicate the semantics, and I agree with
    > Ole that prefix ≠ interface configuration (address + prefix).

I am open to whatever consensus the CBOR WG comes to about including this third case in the document.
I don't have this need myself.

While I think that this third case *could* be added at a later time,  it
seems silly to omit it if there is interest now.

If there was another syntactic way to distinguish address+"netmask" from
prefix, rather than two orderings of the array, I'd be more keen.

One way is to say that it's all prefixes, but that bits beyond the
prefix-length MAY be set.

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

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email