IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] changes in draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 01 August 2021 22:12 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 BDEC23A14EC; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 15:12:30 -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 C1Ua4y_DKeAp; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 15:12:26 -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 CACAD3A14EB; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 15:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A9AE389D8; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 18:16:30 -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 fmdiYpll-_rF; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 18:16:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7DD5389D7; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 18:16:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361A1B24; Sun, 1 Aug 2021 18:12:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "cbor@ietf.org" <cbor@ietf.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <46B16E2E-8461-4727-A6D4-5B008E279BB7@tzi.org>
References: <162608928922.11086.12172415971165753394@ietfa.amsl.com> <29067.1626090045@localhost> <CAMGpriUnfMjhk7teAN-A0j5SCK=BpyJEDC+NOCJtHzmF1BFeow@mail.gmail.com> <aa9884b5-fd58-60cb-fa1d-b2d76f5a09a1@gmail.com> <VI1PR07MB6256E2C9CC9565FF2F080B5DA0E89@VI1PR07MB6256.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <c2c7a576-e138-1364-5ed0-a2987c1c1974@gmail.com> <20210727210706.buavt5nwairrjblf@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <e889a219-26b2-2a2e-6d05-bb6c7db1f89d@gmail.com> <20210801113001.yksklfouoz6v4hvz@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <29415.1627850588@localhost> <46B16E2E-8461-4727-A6D4-5B008E279BB7@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: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2021 18:12:21 -0400
Message-ID: <24169.1627855941@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/Ow1HBwK66iLZ5YRvXSgYW1xwS7Q>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] changes in draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05.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: Sun, 01 Aug 2021 22:12:31 -0000

<#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign>

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    > More like 1981/1982...
    > https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2021-January/006916.html

    > Back to the subject: I’m happy with the tags in this specification
    > being the equivalent of the YANG no-zone types.

okay, do you think this needs some text to explain this?

    > I’d rather wait for the dust on RFC6874bis to settle before putting in
    > zones, and I still think CRIs (draft-ietf-core-href) are the place to
    > do this.

how long will it be for the dust on RFC6874bis to settle?
Should we ask for IESG review now?
It seems that we could do this in parallel.

    > If we do put them in here (draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses), we need
    > to put them into the address and the interface format; maybe not into
    > the prefix format (but I’m not so sure about that).

Yes, you are right Address format too.
I think we can revise (extend) the document to add what we need, once we
understand the use cases better.

The only reason to stop is if we think we got something wrong.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email