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

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 26. Apr 2021, at 02:47, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> 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.

s/The author wanted/The present specification achieves/ or some such.

> 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.

Need a comma after “testing”.
s/removed/not provided/

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

MAC addresses, more generally.

Grüße, Carsten