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

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

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   [phone] (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [e-mail]


On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 12:59 PM Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
>
>