Re: [Cbor] Supporting IPv6 Link-Local with scope (was Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-cbor-network-addresses-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))

Thiago Macieira <> Thu, 07 October 2021 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287FB3A0896 for <>; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 11:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 35E-PyeU6CYD for <>; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 11:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15AE93A0D23 for <>; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 11:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10130"; a="206455376"
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.85,355,1624345200"; d="scan'208";a="206455376"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Oct 2021 11:42:09 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.85,355,1624345200"; d="scan'208";a="458894494"
Received: from (HELO tjmaciei-mobl5.localnet) ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Oct 2021 11:42:09 -0700
From: Thiago Macieira <>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 11:42:09 -0700
Message-ID: <2283051.vNV1qas7Uu@tjmaciei-mobl5>
Organization: Intel Corporation
In-Reply-To: <4397.1633631514@localhost>
References: <> <> <4397.1633631514@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] =?utf-8?q?Supporting_IPv6_Link-Local_with_scope_=28was_Re?= =?utf-8?q?=3A_=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-cbor-network-add?= =?utf-8?q?resses-09=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29=29?=
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: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 18:42:17 -0000

On Thursday, 7 October 2021 11:31:54 PDT Michael Richardson wrote:
>     > - Is "false" for a prefix length a better choice than using either -1
>     > or null?
> We've gone for null.

false, null, 0, -1 and an empty string all have the same length and meaning 
for interfaces indices and names. Null makes the purpose clear (information 
absent) and the distinction between that and 0 might be important somewhere.

Like C++ std::optional<PointerType>: a disengaged optional is different from a 
an engaged optional containing a null pointer. One of those may convey "an 
error occurred" whereas the other says "success, information not applicable". 
Though I'd suggest using undefined for errors in CBOR, instead of null. So 
maybe a null interface is "valid, but missing", an undefined interface is 
"invalid, error" and a zero/empty interface is "not applicable in this 
context" (such as all non-link-local cases).

Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT)
  Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering