[Cbor] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-10: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 07 October 2021 05:58 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietf.org
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D41673A0B63; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 22:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke_via_Datatracker?= <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses@ietf.org, cbor-chairs@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org, barryleiba@computer.org, barryleiba@computer.org, d3e3e3@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.38.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke?= <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <163358628509.12418.6960183945434314645@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 22:58:05 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/RxXSc9MWCV1rFbew8Q-u8K6_T8Y>
Subject: [Cbor] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ietf?= =?utf-8?q?-cbor-network-addresses-10=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 05:58:06 -0000

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thank you for the work put into this document and addressing my previous ballot
points (DISCUSS & COMMENT); those points are kept below for archiving purposes

Special thanks to Barry Leiba for his concise shepherd's write-up but very
clear about the WG consensus.

Thank you also to Donald Eastlake for this INT directorate review that I am
vastly supporting:

I hope that this helps to improve the document,



== PREVIOUS DISCUSS (for archive) ==

Generic comment how are link-local address (LLA) with scope encoded ? I would
expect CBOR to work also on LLA only networks... At the bare minimum, please
state that link-local addresses cannot be encoded with their scope, hence, they
cannot represent an interface.

-- Section 3.1.3 --
How can 2 valid link-local addresses (fe80::1%eth0, fe80::1%eth1) can be
represented in order to identity two interfaces ?

== PREVIOUS COMMENTS (for archive) ==

I love how your start with IPv6 in section 3 and use the ASCII codes for '6'
and '4' ;-)

-- Section 3.2 --
Is there any reason why part of the IPv6 is in lowercase (as in RFC 5952) and
the other part in uppercase ? This is confusing to the reader (even if
hexadecimal numbers are obviously case insensitive).

== NITS ==

-- Abstract --
Should CBOR be expanded ?