Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-richardson-cbor-network-addresses-01.txt

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Nice and sweet (although I liked the sequence in -00 of describing
    > current IP before legacy 32-bit IP better).

I put current IP (v6) first, and v4 second.
I don't think that changed.

    > Need to update the IANA considerations with the new array order.

Yes, I saw that in the diff, it's updated in github now.

    > There needs to be some text about padding in the prefix byte strings.
    > (Ultimately, a prefix is a bit string, which we decided NOT to have as
    > a basic type in RFC 7049; that would be two bytes shorter if we want
    > that.)

You mean, if I have 2001:db8:1234::/33  ?  That I need to emit 7 bits of
zeroes, ideally, and/or that the recipient needs to force those bits to 0.

    > We use the term “byte string”, not “bytestring” or “byte-string”.

okay.

    > I don’t think the current security considerations are worth it — this
    > security consideration applies to any self-describing representation.
    > (And inversely, in a signed object you do want to minimize semantic
    > dependencies from context.)

I don't mind removing it, but having it blank would seem to be lame.

    > I think it would be useful to have some discussion about the
    > pre-existing tags in this space, but that could be done separately
    > (such as in the notable-tags document, for which I need to find time to
    > update it…).

An appendix that describes previous work maybe?

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide