Re: [Cbor] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: (with COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 05 October 2021 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E37B3A0DBF; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 10:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ntdHHua8334n; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 10:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 589573A0DC0; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 10:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 696AD180A0; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 13:14:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id SAQDOhDqNj7D; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 13:14:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0938A1809D; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 13:14:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4506858B; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 13:05:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
cc: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses@ietf.org, barryleiba@computer.org, cbor-chairs@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <163337270139.24096.2858053457546637595@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <163337270139.24096.2858053457546637595@ietfa.amsl.com>
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: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 13:05:57 -0400
Message-ID: <28346.1633453557@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/kPQFbuWS_Use22pfFOM0LFbNgfg>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 17:06:12 -0000

Opened as issue:  https://github.com/cbor-wg/cbor-network-address/issues/10

Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
    > What should a recipient do if they encounter something in a form that is
    > expected to include a "natural length" byte string for the IP address
    > family indicated, but the byte string is a different length?  Do we just
    > need to say that it is "invalid" and thereby invoke the core CBOR rules
    > that require protocols to specify how their decoders handle invalid
    > data?  Or is even that implicit from the CDDL?


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide