IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-02.txt

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 09 June 2021 09:30 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 882FE3A1897 for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 02:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 AmzjopUBmzKV for <cbor@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 02:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1F683A189A for <cbor@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 02:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcc89.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4G0MJh4d44z2xHV; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 11:29:56 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <161530094514.13640.13557132723821236873@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 11:29:56 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 644923796.183351-5af8244a526ee9d1b2c7fa7caaff7eb8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DE9E58FC-13DE-4AD5-B0EC-EBF0DC13153A@tzi.org>
References: <161530094514.13640.13557132723821236873@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/QdqMAN4EAhq7W7BRCuJ-t3nnF4Q>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-02.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: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 09:30:03 -0000

I just had occasion to check RFC 8992 (should have done that earlier, ouch).

Apart from this nice piece of CDDL, repeated all over the place (yes, the rest is missing each time):

     objective-flags /=          ; as in the GRASP specification

… I find:

     prefval /= pref6val
     pref6val = [version6, length, ?prefix]
     version6 = 6
     length = 0..128             ; requested or offered prefix length
     prefix = bytes .size 16     ; offered prefix in binary format

     prefval /= pref4val
     pref4val = [version4, length4, ?prefix4]
     version4 = 4
     length4 = 0..32             ; requested or offered prefix length
     prefix4 = bytes .size 4     ; offered prefix in binary format

Maybe we should supply some CDDL in draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses so people don’t start to copy the above whenever they need a prefix.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email