IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 20 July 2021 01:18 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 2E0EE3A082C for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 xM_3AYI1S6Te for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-f45.google.com (mail-lf1-f45.google.com [209.85.167.45]) (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 5D9333A082B for <cbor@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-f45.google.com with SMTP id 8so33252776lfp.9 for <cbor@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oQhDvg3PrhAqG3cVaM6T2ZpqokKJesCl+gFkPA6UoWQ=; b=eyxFanJvFOvqY5kHME7Dm6SQAf+hNKvAqFsRtFiuLLlnJ4Y3ngJZb58GCGBblfhVMP JGCWD7/QZ7KQQPLQtNQUdr0UE0ApWGsH40HPtwbR8zPSoG8ODxODxBVfWj6Vn/6ZIF3O 2xXw7geGfxRpUNF8FQTMOBTN42uJQApydUd2fqyPYDoPlreVOKT3PMFXWgyarO7OF3kO yOEO+21Lk27SpZQNlHVodoS+JukV5nZ9JIc5bEJfHWVizWEnoZbNh0ZR5jCkysRAFxqp 2RYnCmn3bfZMV1ZtsIw4m0I495S9c5R68WV4hm6iUGVY9QXWrOs5CNZgw+stlf5MOr39 x2hQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533oaNf8M4poRqwatEe6BxEVrrOq4ccX6Vn5BQ7WyokQZ3+1QYTo VumsMYpyzzxioIazopB1a19bs/+U0/CgRp/Ol3j9SgEUlgk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxMcXXX3ht30hSgeMyIAoXvFej9ul1QbM3ROBjisDRYyaa3awCO05P1lOe/lQzBHRJ6EoTzxX+9TDN1IbjjemI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:230b:: with SMTP id o11mr20753879lfu.292.1626743908089; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALaySJ+wieWsNU+hk6dj2OUxQbioRcqhAQM6+zWYzuV08XQ7kA@mail.gmail.com> <04B9BC2F-282F-4D0E-B97C-A03C3D25B8AF@tzi.org> <20598.1626729113@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20598.1626729113@localhost>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 21:18:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJLyB-=735XyfzRsSTGynROA-cixvX5RQ1E2p_Yi5PR+yg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: cbor@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/HWwpRMiY4AgqzjTqeGwyiyxp9_U>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Document shepherd review of draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses
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, 20 Jul 2021 01:18:35 -0000

No, I just wrote it as "[addr]", but didn't mean it as an actual
array.  Carsten did the right thing in the PR.

b

On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 5:12 PM Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>     >> — Sections 3.1 and 3.2 —
>     >>
>     >> There are examples of [prefix-length, addr] and [addr, prefix-length],
>     >> but no examples of just [addr],
>
>     > (Which would be wrong — we only have `addr`, not `[addr]`.)
>
> "future work" :-)
>
> I guess, if I write code for this (I haven't done the interface spec), and I
> saw [addr], I'm assume [addr,128].
> I don't think that this is worth writing down, nor worth encouraging.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status