Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-04.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 26 April 2021 00:47 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 DC4A63A0B69; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 17:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 uY-DRnsVciiQ; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 17:47:24 -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 076213A0B6C; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 17:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA9A838BB6; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 20:55:21 -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 YDlGWCKEbNtn; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 20:55:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBAC438BB5; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 20:55:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E82A2486; Sun, 25 Apr 2021 20:47:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, cbor@ietf.org, 6man@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <5989D772-0104-4F12-A43B-AFBC77266C9C@tzi.org>
References: <12496.1619216560@localhost> <C3A4A868-4B39-4428-93AA-D0B88F79B9BD@employees.org> <5989D772-0104-4F12-A43B-AFBC77266C9C@tzi.org>
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: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 20:47:20 -0400
Message-ID: <26182.1619398040@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/Ii_aasqpJYqSUXkt7uDMMJHVw4Y>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-04.txt
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: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 00:47:29 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    >> - for 261 I would at least include those arguments and make it clear when to use or the other

    > Sounds good to me.

What I'm hearing is that you'd like me to write something like below.
  https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-network-address/commit/c7962ed01ef0f63773cca70c97be54edc481bb78


# Introduction

{{RFC8949}} defines a number of CBOR Tags for common items.

Tag 260 and tag 261 was later defined through IANA.
These tags cover addresses (260), and prefixes (261).
Tag 260 distinguishes between IPv4, IPv6 and Ethernet through the length of the byte string only.
Tag 261 was not documented well enough to be used.

The author wanted an explicit indication of IPv4 or IPv6, and the possibility to omit trailing zeroes.

This document provides a format for IPv6 and IPv4 addresses and prefixes.
Prefixes may omit trailing zeroes in the address.
Due to the complexity of testing the value of omitting trailing zeros for addresses was considered non-essential and support for that was removed in this specification.

This document does not deal with 6 or 8-byte ethernet addressees.





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