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

Brian E Carpenter <> Sun, 25 July 2021 02:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489753A0E7D; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 19:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 yM0c6oEHb0_5; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 19:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 893393A0E7A; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 19:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e5so5650709pld.6; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 19:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
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=pkD6f0VEQ5u92Z+SaLaBquw0sUiSjycu9UTp7BdO9+Q=; b=dlaWiiIZcgyqkHiEkKCz8/U0EA+EStNjU126bajc1E2Lme0vDchhy327FUKg665gva AzWmh0Uz/A5+qkyQpgMUG2qTD/+RMTfbpAJ/vtAJ8I83p3EM8eZYi5jPTfsAmIfr//sj +r0y2vJ+/Z+ENLB+j/jbosquEEjz4Nvdc7vmiQ6IAum2NMbp/o7FAIfhgo59otXQQ6+N N1KuDyl1K9uIZtPuHtZP/aLF5KIfx+v1wdLiVpsNMrPrswE+1OWt5jeFKRIuSMV3Jgdi jqhBZCseymd0W7UkV+Nx0B7U7rbGXw+xVo2fk5sT6Kz4zfbLTsjuor5zXiwfZnI5D1BB XUAA==
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=pkD6f0VEQ5u92Z+SaLaBquw0sUiSjycu9UTp7BdO9+Q=; b=CACk5YjI0rtjVru140wYCCje0i5WtOiwElfxxSjcONv7u4eDcYgXqw/+FGa/vkMPEm XUxBJx7mNyxgmSr6GZmXEd28gBXJDugmSalm94B1Tvyio7r/YvQZVSm48VvlMqnkYci8 YT+KNkW2Ch9VpFgC8H5nINg/aZxWQGnL/MwciAV52Chwqkm533K20EdMPhIGHi77Kgd/ koKUHEXLvlPMXxE5nf40DgdXRPsqxJIky2zNpotqAV++VVCvMkzd8+ScU0BdqDAHCgL3 GgHQZVyY1aUyam/N2sj6oQofWWPWTfqdknBT9OhL6G7iofpzuhYiDf8DAeP9mVJAG3JL Rwkg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530P1n7cY88vKgHQEcEvtjL7HDA1yYBXxx/Bg8yMWcuD8yFvWTFH FKOzCQtl5EgVS1da8Qg+XCDWC3awA/dyLQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwt4nZp7mb9GiHo6G3zYnwD6Ym+ArwULgJutKn9akUam18LqYy61Xx1kqNOVsqWNDaFw+jDKQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:490b:: with SMTP id p11mr11664283pgs.313.1627179393529; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 19:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:1188:5b01:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:1188:5b01:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by with ESMTPSA id c14sm42852876pgv.86.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 24 Jul 2021 19:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
To: Michael Richardson <>, Erik Kline <>
Cc:, 6MAN <>
References: <> <29067.1626090045@localhost> <> <8065.1627177050@localhost>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2021 14:16:29 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8065.1627177050@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] 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: Sun, 25 Jul 2021 02:16:40 -0000

On 25-Jul-21 13:37, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Erik Kline <> wrote:
>     > Was there any interest in figuring out a representation for link-local
>     > addresses (e.g. 169.254.x.y, fe80::zed, ff02::pqr, ...) that included
>     > either an interface name or index as part of a structured unit?  Perhaps
>     > some generic {address_info, interface_info} pairing that could be 
used the
>     > same way?
> We will name the third form "Interface Format" or "Inteface Definition Format"
> I think that the concern about the scope could only apply to that format,
> or to the Address format.
> Hmm. Well, the more I think about it, the more I think it applies to Address only.
> I imagine we might find a way to do this differently.
> Best I think think about is abusing maps in some way here.
>      { 'eth0' => h'fe800db81234DEEDBEEFCAFEFACEFEED' }
>     > Obviously, it's possible to pair what you've described here together with
>     > extra interface information separately on an ad hoc basis.
> I'd like to avoid inventing syntax before we need it.
> So, let's talk about how you might use this?

Indeed. I can more easily imagine how core-href might need
it, because the use cases for http might conceivably apply
there. But I don't see it here.

It would be an easy extension, just add a field to the array,
so could we just leave it for later?

fwiw, in a constrained environment, I think you'd always want
to use the interface number (a small integer) rather than
the interface name (which can be a lot longer than "eth0";
"enxb827ebc170a4" is a real example from my Raspberry Pi).

> I heard a talk about Extended ICMP Echo from Ron Bonica this week, and I can
> see how it might have used it, but that ship has sailed.
> --
> Michael Richardson <>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list