Re: [Cbor] Interface names (Re: changes in draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05.txt)

Christian Amsüss <> Tue, 27 July 2021 09:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080C83A1D92; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 02:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C_XXdzZncamI; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 02:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:4f8:190:3064::3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9DE93A1D91; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 02:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2E92401B5; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:55:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010:a800:ff:fede:b1bf]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE89ED0; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:55:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 577B0101; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:55:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (nullmailer pid 3010371 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 27 Jul 2021 09:55:05 -0000
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:55:05 +0200
From: Christian Amsüss <>
To: Carsten Bormann <>
Cc: Erik Kline <>,, 6MAN <>,
Message-ID: <YP/>
References: <> <29067.1626090045@localhost> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="D0qnWMT2l4O2k3sh"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Interface names (Re: changes in draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05.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, 27 Jul 2021 09:55:18 -0000

Hello Carsten, groups,

> Interface names are local, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to carry
> them around between systems, which is where CBOR is mostly used these
> days.

two applications come to mind:

* RD introspection[1] uses zone identifiers in what may be described as
  debug output: Usually an RD won't show you a resource on a fe80::
  address not on your link, but as an administrator you may need the
  birds-eye view.

* Many network devices offer a remote way to run a ping; when the
  process is started via CBOR, it'd be useful to give an interface

I'm not particularly advocating that we add zone identifiers to the new
tags (as I can use URIs or even work around completely in the former,
and don't have a pressing need for the latter) -- but with those
examples, a statement like "we don't specify interface identifiers
because they shouldn't be serialized anyway" would be overreaching.



To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers.
  -- Bene Gesserit axiom