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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 05 October 2021 16:59 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 675DD3A0E4F; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 09:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
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 E2jDrkSGI4hE; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 09:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
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 DFA2F3A0E46; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 09:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E95261805D; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 13:07:32 -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 dKwu5HbgcZf8; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 13:07:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA8918054; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 13:07:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C5193D6; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 12:59:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: cbor@ietf.org
cc: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, d3e3e3@gmail.com, draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses@ietf.org, barryleiba@computer.org, cbor-chairs@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <163344085669.17315.998599560097016034@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <163344085669.17315.998599560097016034@ietfa.amsl.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: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 12:59:19 -0400
Message-ID: <26566.1633453159@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/BPc212CdLJF4fcQZJg8IalSgaUM>
Subject: [Cbor] Deprecating tags and Ethernet address in draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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, 05 Oct 2021 16:59:53 -0000

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