Re: [Cbor] changes to draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-01.txt

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 09 March 2021 04:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1283A0ED6 for <>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 20:28:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id idNaXVC1IGs0 for <>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 20:28:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::531]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80D8F3A0ED3 for <>; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 20:28:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id o38so7900378pgm.9 for <>; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 20:28:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wOua9rZ/p1xDglNOYJ04THCjgYLheSc28lr4abiyWDQ=; b=TU7KtHU6XCP64EEu+rAI5/rekct0PLZ5Ip1eXeEcyjKeAQefTu00k1Tzam8/mo4+Vb 0SXHuTMBkV3g89ONF3OG6WkJ+FL0JAnJks17fsBcHWB2+aTLc8bI4q3Om8qrLD5gUMHN 280wXrJLnPmGRWQDidbaEB3OWbItTL8JcOD6SMhg+vVsoAc7/ZJ1MwLR4wbfrMBJh5SS o/JkcMkXO0AYyVpZI21zVTDCeFh9gCXRWRzRONgQW524rlw1AbFgs7K+ez3wT22gmgWh J0dKio0U4X4A0PDSNWSCCIlfNSt1AQyf/USqpywon4rKqukxXalFdQgIAiZP6KcG47lZ hfKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wOua9rZ/p1xDglNOYJ04THCjgYLheSc28lr4abiyWDQ=; b=BW4qt7bCrLWQSZEG3GSq3nXibNHc9IH/KtJQyZH4OW2/LyGDiQoahyosB4dI3mZTFH DyqY4garMBwrBKuBM3qq20XoMBcPZ4oAbBBIRT+DzYYGqXcSK/SGw7snFOVAjnsAH62+ 8PvGiCkvrMYOvyKkQ5Y35yAildbb8KGTBWK/TU7s3irjALmNB4XMyPJkUvenmV2gLDe/ g7vVebNbAXWmR5PgWLDwpd9um7Lmwi1MYtp5z95NQSwGJ9XWRtgMum5BvaLGjn5ZKzuL os1Thv+2F9wH6zK8ArdayzMQoaseVkwkz0N5UwpPqsCapuuU1CqQWvEwLPKflhyzENBe T6MQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532+5+Wrv6WpbuFfOAGsSXK8oLf6dTnQRknkxfHSt9kkRpdwLsv/ 7Sot8YYY0z8O5ltdkz4LJKPT7ydycjwjzg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwtE4JuhMHHvv8DSXP/TCidgAs7PWqzA7q+yIOID1c0PQmevgTjYJ8QWzeUo9z94+RDkyGztg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:e415:: with SMTP id a21mr22957074pgi.241.1615264131530; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 20:28:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id mz11sm944935pjb.6.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Mar 2021 20:28:51 -0800 (PST)
To: Carsten Bormann <>, Michael Richardson <>
References: <> <> <30430.1615160268@localhost> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 17:28:45 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] changes to draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 04:28:55 -0000

On 08-Mar-21 20:53, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> I think prefixes and addresses are completely separate use cases.
> There is rarely a point in suppressing trailing zeroes in an address.
> We shouldn’t burden implementations to cater to this 0.4 % case (probably less in practice).
> Prefixes are different, and they should indeed always be tail-cut.
> (They are usually /64 or shorter, so there is a real win.)

True, but we didn't bother about that in draft-ietf-anima-prefix-management, because it isn't really aimed at constrained devices. It sends the prefix as bytes .size 16
(or bytes .size 4), which makes life easier.
> We could imagine an alternate world where IIDs are carefully chosen so that actual addresses have as many trailing zeroes as possible.

We could, but that contravenes the IPv6 privacy recommendations.

> But that’s not what happens today.  If we were to compress inner zero runs (as in “::”), we’d need to give the byte position where that happens (the length would be implied by the length of the remaining byte string).
> I’m not proposing we cater to that.

No, you'd be better inventing a generic "compress zero bytes" mechanism and tag, but would you really want to go there?


> Grüße, Carsten
> (The /24 IPv4 example in the draft is wrong.)