[Cbor] Deprecating tags and Ethernet address in draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

{another area review, this one from Donald, which never made it to my
inbox. This seems to happen on and off for me. I know it's a local issue. sigh}

Opened as issue: https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-network-address/issues/9

I guess that I'd like to thank the IESG, ADs and Donald Eastlake for
confirming for me, why I didn't want to say ANYTHING about tags 260 and 261 :-)

I think that there was a fourth comment which I've misplaced, maybe from
Barry, about what if you did want to tag an ethernet address.
I don't need to do that, if there is someone who does, maybe they could speak up?
Tag 260 still works, but maybe you want another tag.

First, since some previous review a week ago, the text now says

  ## Tags 260 and 261

  IANA is requested to add the note "DEPRECATED in favor of 52 and 54 for IP
  addresses" to registrations 260 and 261


... the document does not deal with Ethernet Addresses.


  According to this document, there currently exists a method for
  encoding 48- and 64-bit MAC addresses using CBOR tag 260 but that
  method will be deprecated. Shouldn't the draft preserve some
  non-deprecated way of encoding MAC addresses?
** Section 8.3.  Recommend making the text clearer on what’s getting deprecated

OLD
   IANA is requested to add the note "DEPRECATED in favor of 52 and 54
   for IP addresses" to registrations 260 and 261

NEW
IANA is requested to add the note "DEPRECATED for use with IP addresses in
favor of 52 and 54" to registrations 260 and 261
In light of the genart reviewer's comment, I think we should say
something like "this specification does not deal with Ethernet
addresses, and tag 260 remains available for that usage" to clarify that
we are not deprecating use of that tag for Ethernet addresses.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide