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

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Tue, 05 October 2021 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@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 931D03A0A13; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 15:02:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 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_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 5cQ6fI7rvjrh; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 15:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12e.google.com (mail-il1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) (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 33FD83A0AAA; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 15:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id l20so894914ilk.2; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 15:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=e9DTQbK1pY7KJU5Pxy4PufgVxwL6ZNNiiHxA4hPO8pE=; b=gvMBftmybwOJLBcxTzNIOQ+Iv5pSrrvaC6yOFTxV3eHNAyISI0ip6vUGKQ+BprSBPk 7dRP8FRdOmmHJ7irbto4cfXkFpWOWmGFykaEe/zCQLil9sikwbZnmtbv4pUIzFBzxdjA FUK+M4SOgdgS0d2BkkT8xE5eZHi58eJTjxooz2pYjlotZ3YofOoFXcgQ0KTATEV474rt pSnj5eWC0WuM4z/uxNl9kxYaOWXpZ74PZw4cGjpAXVu3X6DfSkz+sVnLjDVp9gOmdK1m +M7LkqgBKAk8VGRJtS1FznDvhuG5loNFQ0Ox16waizE/iG/dldv3eEmGVBiyBo3NorB6 t0Fg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=e9DTQbK1pY7KJU5Pxy4PufgVxwL6ZNNiiHxA4hPO8pE=; b=u7lswD4OgPBwsb6mkbzqe5K/8F91c8pevYmjyBQhUxcJ8a+D+kMQHzrqFQkXyIs64T /50w/qHgR6b1pr/r8p619Ch7JIQ1OWoRGztSMzByXo8ay9zJdgQdv9LONw+Syl1CtjpA dHYoXbdxXKrPPYOybp4BoiWL42hx2s3ZT7diBTG5VPtPQUt/fZFfcQHKZsx+xMtWz+zs RgW62pHkGELfMlVH8ZKFnbnN3AFnIEPEA+BLiSppx3kQTJ6TAbDpvVZ8YIDpbc79iTCz IoVFRb7s81xZQ+iIcfJgX7oxoeX77Su+TDL/NaXa7T5o6ZQ5gi+S+uUbHIBndAg+0IMV Yjhg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531XP3H8CXQnuoCkUAmlV59QLH5186pFwN9C3Hf9Mjq6CTE0rawp qQ3bp20YdCE7dVE5z/EmdxFc+1Bccs8+lzY7vk26w9qW9fY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzs0JVJbpHQkcBxViq1NU5ep28QzfQwj9uvpxQnF33QUj2qbX1NtXlENgg+UMeTxjpg7nPb2GDvAsBJyLJX1sQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:cdad:: with SMTP id g13mr4536605ild.103.1633471327333; Tue, 05 Oct 2021 15:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <163344085669.17315.998599560097016034@ietfa.amsl.com> <26566.1633453159@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <26566.1633453159@localhost>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 18:01:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEEF3Rv=KoiS9DZZUVeXnLPdhT=1qa-CNwJR-CHtk9BhEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses@ietf.org
Cc: cbor@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, cbor-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000037724305cda22e40"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/I49hlrHka1BUPAq8oCtO77xElvc>
Subject: Re: [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 22:02:15 -0000

Hi,

I am in the process of revising RFC 7042. See
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eastlake-rfc7042bis/

Perhaps rfc7042bis should specify a CBOR tag for MAC addresses. I'd be
happy to add that.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com


On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 12:59 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> {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
>
>
>
>
>