IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 26 July 2021 15:27 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 A24B13A1A3C; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 08:27:10 -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_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 vXSeb81QJ8xd; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 08:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-f42.google.com (mail-lf1-f42.google.com [209.85.167.42]) (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 8F12F3A1A03; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 08:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-f42.google.com with SMTP id u3so16125527lff.9; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 08:27:05 -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=v21vWb81V0OlrpeACq5LG2l6fzNo2scWXvskJyMNIxE=; b=SeOazQ+aN5sjnqQcd6cxJFGDcuCqwWbET4ukoWdaHYB5jERQo1ozySDF3DSvQt84MI RCaBdSjLHRtMlrrtyqFuBL+00qpSN9thGsPleYsMZ3oldlCs0PttB4fDRlFyl8iEgXHq d6IF7hKpAKf9x4iJPFx4uTE/2gOmua+5VPe+28lhbDGstkuZGpVhZw68nFGsTis7/k0R H01Wqzau8BlkBZ6K/mjoxrJui1Il/4LvbPKTW1x3gNTgxVL9CK8BW6wvgj3IZ4i8eSED XK5lTCrH5aNd2Abqb4tEjbFSbe/0/tyjfCSCpaadtHJhh7JifJ/RLSbzAJqeNZVmJf1i T92w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5301i4nThvgIu7N3bmjPkqMpKipLvCGtPSC7o6k4ltgtaA5A52Tl o91fhsY9pouxNqVTLGriV5/zEOqQH1ERWziitog=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJycO85d+ui2j/MWgT+1hwnJD9LBKcG1ndpytfScBk9M831Asm8GKuHTRFIMNm8X0uc9jCCL/QIoKrQrqeGpPO0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:230b:: with SMTP id o11mr13952437lfu.292.1627313223313; Mon, 26 Jul 2021 08:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <162729343263.13734.5774247416866337222@ietfa.amsl.com> <ECE0152F-121F-4EC4-94C3-EC7DB4A115D0@tzi.org> <CALaySJ+Xf0B2EUFJJ3h19BMKZBcTQaiR4uk+LdoaM5MG_+R1-Q@mail.gmail.com> <0F643A58-126F-4DAA-B5CF-485C092369F5@tzi.org> <CALaySJ+bBm-vc35Zj-rUCKq8A0AL+tBDcc0u612Qhmz23qPCHw@mail.gmail.com> <189D1249-232C-4667-8603-3E6791166877@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <189D1249-232C-4667-8603-3E6791166877@tzi.org>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 11:26:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJJe2Nf3Syb9pqtwVQXO92ZPFh+USYSjhTLanz6pV9JSeA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses.all@ietf.org, IETF IoT Directorate <iot-directorate@ietf.org>, Mohit Sethi <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com>, cbor@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/Q3SgLHbKQ-0xkO6qhB1K0rBd9IU>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05
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 Jul 2021 15:27:11 -0000

WFM; thanks.

b

On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 10:46 AM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>
> In 2021-07-26, at 16:38, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> >
> >> We could expand that a bit more.
> >
> > Maybe just a sentence, like, "These new tags should be used in
> > preference to tags 260 and 261."  Or some such.
>
> How about “the new tags are intended to be used in preference…”?
>
> We can’t place a SHOULd or SHould or should here, but we can state the intention.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> >
> > b
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 10:19 AM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2021-07-26, at 15:42, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> But if the working
> >>> group would rather see such new implementors use 52/54, it would be
> >>> useful to have a few words about that in this document, however brief
> >>> and however non-normative.
> >>
> >> Right.  The intro says about our motivation:
> >>
> >>   [RFC8949] defines a number of CBOR Tags for common items.  Tags 260
> >>   and 261 were 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.
> >>
> >>   This specification provides a format for IPv6 and IPv4 addresses,
> >>   prefixes, and addresses with prefixes, achieving an explicit
> >>   indication of IPv4 or IPv6.  Prefixes omit trailing zeroes in the
> >>   address.  […]
> >>
> >> We could expand that a bit more.
> >>
> >> Grüße, Carsten
> >>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email