Re: [Cbor] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-05

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Mohit,

thank you for the fast review!

On 2021-07-26, at 11:57, Mohit Sethi via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Mohit Sethi
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> In the abstract, perhaps "describes" could be "specifies"/"defines"?

The introduction now says

   This document provides a format for IPv6 and IPv4 addresses,

Something similar might work for the abstract.

> It might make sense to provide references to the definition of tags 260  and
> 261. I had to look them up.

The reference should be through the registry, as the RFC will be immutable, and those links might change over time.
(Unfortunately, IANA doesn’t currently provide direct links into individual registrations, only references to entire tables:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags/cbor-tags.xhtml#table-tags
… which in this case are about as good as references to the entire registry:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags/cbor-tags.xhtml
)

> "was removed in this specification" -> "is removed in this specification"?

Well, “removed” is unclear relative to what anyway.
“Is not provided in…” maybe.

> "When applied to an array that starts with a number"? Is 'number' the correct
> terminology? I confused it with the tag number?

CBOR has different kinds of numbers, but here we really mean unsigned integer.

> What would happen to tags 260 and 261. Are they now discouraged/forbidden? Are
> they meant to co-exist with 52 and 54?

We don’t have a way to “deprecate” tags.

See also <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/6BqK5_jrqyz4JelJNbZ8Uwp3kV0>

So I’d like to keep this document free of such a relative grading.

Grüße, Carsten