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

Michael Richardson <> Sun, 07 February 2021 04:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 859473A2F88 for <>; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 20:37:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 PH_77WFB3xcp for <>; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 20:37:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE1703A2F87 for <>; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 20:37:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46292389A9; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 23:40:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([]) by localhost (localhost []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 4VMb9RV06vlu; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 23:40:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F98B389A7; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 23:40:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCE3EC65; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 23:37:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2021 23:37:47 -0500
Message-ID: <9223.1612672667@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] I-D Action: draft-richardson-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: Sun, 07 Feb 2021 04:37:54 -0000

Carsten Bormann <> 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”.


    > 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 <>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide